298: Who Needs Friends?
- Thread starter Chuck Wendig
- Start date
A very interesting read indeed, and I agree. I think this might actually be why I was able to get into Fallout 3 much more than I have done so with New Vegas. Also, I think that those connections are a major reason why I have turned out to like Ezio in AC2 quite alot, which allowed me to get over my usual dislike for games that force me to play male characters. It would be nice to see more games that made it feel like its characters were part of the world, and had existed before the game began. Or, at least, to take the Fallout 3 approach and give a good reason for why a character would not really know the outside world so much.
I've said for a while now that single player gaming seems to be catered to and by introverted loners. That's not a jab, I too was once a bit of an introverted loner as a kid, spending a large chunk of time alone. It's also one of many reasons why gaming was so slow to spread beyond that original core of gamers; their focus on single player, not multi--and especially--co-operative gaming was a big turn off to the vast majourity of humanity.
In addition to a possible relationship with Ulysses, there is a dialogue script that indicates that the Courier has been out west in NCR territory before, specifically New Reno.DriveByLawsuit said:
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Bruce_Isaac
This is a combination of both personal projection on the part of the player (via a provided dialogue option), and character background that hasn't been entirely revealed in the currently released content. This may indicate that some or all of the character's close relationships (friends) are back west, or are operating in different areas, or dead. Is that fact important to the overall narrative of the game? Not really.
I'm a fan of projecting onto the characters I play, not simply playing by the script known by a few NPCs in the background story created by the developer's writers. But to facilitate that there should be more dialogue options to pursue that. A majority of the time the only dialogue options available equate to:
1. Okay. I'll help you fight the good fight.
2. Maybe. I'll help you, but for a price.
3. No. I'd rather not get involved.
4. No. I won't help you, and I'm robbing you. Gimme your all stuff right now.
Four options is really limited. I'd rather have more options, akin to the nine alignments in AD&D:
1. I'll help you, although it might be illegal, since the law is sometimes unjust.
2. Okay. I'll help you even though it might be illegal. I don't really care.
3. I'll definitely help you. That'll show the establishment and their unjust laws.
4. I'd help you, but your plan is against the law. No.
5. I'd rather not get involved.
6. I really don't care about your cause, and would prefer we never speak again.
7. I can't help you, and I'm turning you in to law enforcement.
8. I won't help you, and I think you should gimme all your stuff right now.
9. I can't help you, and I think I'll kill you right now.
This would allow more personalization and characterization in the game world, allowing the players to project onto the characters with their own personality. Perhaps I'm content with this due to playing all those mute amnesiac characters in the past.
Some video game characters have friends, but it doesn't help that all but a handful are locked in an underground bomb shelter for the entire game.
Side note: Lucca in Chrono Trigger never built me a jet-bike or powered exoskeleton because there was never a dialogue option to ask her.
Yeah there was always something that bothered me when playing a Bethesda game, especially Oblivion, when it dawned on me that I'm basically playing Jim Carey's character from The Truman Show with the distinct feeling that the in-game world somehow unnaturally revolves around me. And as a fan of immersion I don't like that.
Making things even more annoying, whenever you have a group encounter, like that ruined city early in the storyline where you fight alongside some other guards or later in the sewer when you work with that spy, I long for some sort of connection with the characters so I tediously save & load my way through the encounters to ensure everyone comes out alive, and at the end of it all am reward with the usual blank stares as these characters had no meaning to their existince and it was unimportant if they lived or died.
Making things even more annoying, whenever you have a group encounter, like that ruined city early in the storyline where you fight alongside some other guards or later in the sewer when you work with that spy, I long for some sort of connection with the characters so I tediously save & load my way through the encounters to ensure everyone comes out alive, and at the end of it all am reward with the usual blank stares as these characters had no meaning to their existince and it was unimportant if they lived or died.
I thought the lone wanderer in Fallout 3 (at least in my game) had friends. Amata was really glad to see me when I came back to Vault 101 after hearing the emergency message. Even Fawkes greeted me after my escape of Raven Rock by saying something along the lines of: "My friend! It is so good to see you again! Still, this was a really good Issue and I had a lot of fun reading it. Hope you guys keep up the good work!
The article is about "friends", and I brought Portal up because its a game where you have none, but at the same time this doesn't take away from the experience. There isn't any more meaning to the relationship with the computer then Megaman's relationship with the mid game bosses. An obstacle that must be overcome!manaman said:
Again, throwing mission objectives isn't a relationship. There's more to it, and I can't recall Agent 47's contact ever really crossing that threshold until Blood Money. Thats four games before we get any development.manaman said:
Meanwhile, you have relationships like that of Agent Smith, which seems more like a running gag in the series. He gets captured, you rescue him, he gives info and leaves. You never see him and 47 getting all buddy buddy in a bar later...
In Halo, Masterchief and Cortana have a relationship because she says more than just mission objectives...
Yeah, but what about his friends? Dude was prince of a whole kingdom and he didn't have his own entourage?manaman said:
This fit in with the story though since you could immediately tell by the end of the first level he was a douche and completely full of himself.
Having recently played through Assassins Creed II, I can totally agree with this article. Ser Ezio is a much more likable character than Desmond or Altair due to the connections he shares with family and friends; he actually feels like a person.
And too many games have the same problem; the protagonist is as lonely as a ship in a bottle.
And too many games have the same problem; the protagonist is as lonely as a ship in a bottle.
I think game designes are afraid of using that approach because they think gamers will not like it. To be honest, as I was reading the article I thought that would be its approach as well. 'There's this guy called Rodriguez. He's saying he knows me. What the fuck? I just met him, I don't know who he is, and I would never have become friends with a guy this annoying in the first place. Fuck off, Rodriguez.'
Partly it's one of everyone's main complaints on gaming - they have bad stories. People complain that games don't know how to portray minorities, don't know how to portray women, don't know how to be subtle. And they're all true, but that's all because of a simple thing - they don't know how to set up stories. Characters, particualarly, are very difficult to set up in an enjoyable and interesting way. So in the same way games have to turn to cheap tricks like HUEG plot twists in their narratives they have to turn to simplistic stereotypes to use as their characters. Writing it the Indiana Jones way, as you suggested, is hard work. You have to deliver this in a way that the viewers/players care about what is going on even before they have had time to acquaint themselves with the characters and their relationship. This isn't particularly hard - Indiana Jones is not exactly known for its riveting emotional story - but video game writing just isn't up to par.
Partly it's because of the emphasis modern day games have on 'you are your character, your every action molds your story!' MovieBob complained about it just last week, and he has kind of a point. If you can create a character to be however you like and you want him to be a cynical loner, then knowing that you have an old friend who ate pies with you when you were growing up might spoil the image you have built in your mind. It's too bad that the modern industry seems to think this is what they should aspire to, when it's just another approach, both being just as valid.
And of course partly it's because of what I call the 'Outsider Theory', or the full name, 'The Random One's Outsider Theory by The Random One' (pat.pen.). Under that theory, game characters are often outsiders, foreigners or otherwise ignorant of the gameworld because that's the state the player finds herself in when booting up the game. Since the player will be meeting the world for the first time, the strangeness inherent to the game as you're picking up the controls will match the character's strangeness as he learns how things work in the new world. And of course since you have no prior 'luggage' you're allowed to behave in the world as you see fit. Look around and see how many games go out of the way to estabilish a character that is disconnected to the world and is discovering it in tandem with the player. But, of course, this doesn't mean friendships aren't possible. Your example of Fallout 3 points to this - a vault-born in the Fallout world has a great excuse to be an outsider in the wastelands, but she does have family and associates. Nico Belic is a foreigner who knows nothing of Liberty city, but he does have a cousin. You can have your cake and eat it too.
Partly it's one of everyone's main complaints on gaming - they have bad stories. People complain that games don't know how to portray minorities, don't know how to portray women, don't know how to be subtle. And they're all true, but that's all because of a simple thing - they don't know how to set up stories. Characters, particualarly, are very difficult to set up in an enjoyable and interesting way. So in the same way games have to turn to cheap tricks like HUEG plot twists in their narratives they have to turn to simplistic stereotypes to use as their characters. Writing it the Indiana Jones way, as you suggested, is hard work. You have to deliver this in a way that the viewers/players care about what is going on even before they have had time to acquaint themselves with the characters and their relationship. This isn't particularly hard - Indiana Jones is not exactly known for its riveting emotional story - but video game writing just isn't up to par.
Partly it's because of the emphasis modern day games have on 'you are your character, your every action molds your story!' MovieBob complained about it just last week, and he has kind of a point. If you can create a character to be however you like and you want him to be a cynical loner, then knowing that you have an old friend who ate pies with you when you were growing up might spoil the image you have built in your mind. It's too bad that the modern industry seems to think this is what they should aspire to, when it's just another approach, both being just as valid.
And of course partly it's because of what I call the 'Outsider Theory', or the full name, 'The Random One's Outsider Theory by The Random One' (pat.pen.). Under that theory, game characters are often outsiders, foreigners or otherwise ignorant of the gameworld because that's the state the player finds herself in when booting up the game. Since the player will be meeting the world for the first time, the strangeness inherent to the game as you're picking up the controls will match the character's strangeness as he learns how things work in the new world. And of course since you have no prior 'luggage' you're allowed to behave in the world as you see fit. Look around and see how many games go out of the way to estabilish a character that is disconnected to the world and is discovering it in tandem with the player. But, of course, this doesn't mean friendships aren't possible. Your example of Fallout 3 points to this - a vault-born in the Fallout world has a great excuse to be an outsider in the wastelands, but she does have family and associates. Nico Belic is a foreigner who knows nothing of Liberty city, but he does have a cousin. You can have your cake and eat it too.
or "her"Agent Larkin said:
anyway annoying Political correctness aside, I always wondered what was with tthat grafiti in that place? who put it there?
and what happened in dead money? what dose that scene mean? (because I probably wont be able to get it anytime soon)
Well, the games that portray this tend to make friendship some kind of superpower, not just a bond between individuals. Look at Lord of the Rings. Yeah, Sam and Frodo have been friends for their whole lives, but they don't grant each other any powers or abilities, they just help each other out. They both help carry the burden of the other, and do their best to help each out along.greatslack said:
For the type of games you mean, the ending sequence usually has a piece where the hero/heroine asks for the power of his friends, and everyone he met on his journey lends them some kind of mystical universal chi, or something, as if friendship was a tangible and transferable quality.
Not to be a nitpick, but Ramirez was a U.S. Army Ranger. And even then, they could've written the whole 'magical' transporting C-130 from Afghanistan to Virgina better. "Hey Ramirez, Remember when we got back from being in country? All those houses down by Benning? Reminds me of the one Mary and I were looking at." Little more appropriate. Cue Attack. Cue up other Ranger getting taken down by a burst of AK fire. Part of you dies.
I think that, while yes, most games can achieve a sense of depth far beyond that of the narrative allows. Homefront's beginning sequence, while mediocre, had me so enraged I spent the whole game committing War Crimes on any already dead Korean soldiers. It didn't matter that I didn't know these people being rounded up, nor that I was more focused on just trying to survive. No, When I saw what had to have been the most enraging thing ever (Happens about mid-way through the sequence) I made it my mission to put an extra few rounds into every dead Korean Soldiers body to avenge the treachery.
But it's all after thoughts in the great scheme of things. People want to believe that games can have deeper connections, but as evidenced by some reviewers and critics out there, those are the points in the game that most of them criticize or use as a joke. The Deaths in Modern Warfare 2, meant to be a surreal experience, are the most pointed to example of OVERDOING it.
And I really don't like blaming the devs who don't think of the depth they could convey, It's like how if you stare at a word long enough it'll start looking wrong. They've sunk whole weeks on small sections of this map, what's it to them to not notice points where they could have the moments of surreal.
I think that, while yes, most games can achieve a sense of depth far beyond that of the narrative allows. Homefront's beginning sequence, while mediocre, had me so enraged I spent the whole game committing War Crimes on any already dead Korean soldiers. It didn't matter that I didn't know these people being rounded up, nor that I was more focused on just trying to survive. No, When I saw what had to have been the most enraging thing ever (Happens about mid-way through the sequence) I made it my mission to put an extra few rounds into every dead Korean Soldiers body to avenge the treachery.
But it's all after thoughts in the great scheme of things. People want to believe that games can have deeper connections, but as evidenced by some reviewers and critics out there, those are the points in the game that most of them criticize or use as a joke. The Deaths in Modern Warfare 2, meant to be a surreal experience, are the most pointed to example of OVERDOING it.
And I really don't like blaming the devs who don't think of the depth they could convey, It's like how if you stare at a word long enough it'll start looking wrong. They've sunk whole weeks on small sections of this map, what's it to them to not notice points where they could have the moments of surreal.
I thought New Vegas handled companions and friendships much better than Fallout 3.
Plus New Vegas felt much more like a RPG, the courier barely had any backstory which meant it was up to the player to decide what kind of player he/she will be. In Fallout 3 pretty much your whole childhood life and family is explained to you, you have almost no control over your character's life, even if you act like an asshole you still have to find your dad, you still have to help him, you have to activate the purifier and you have to side with the Brotherhood of Steel.
In New Vegas you play as a courier, someone who is constantly moving around and visiting different places which would make permament friendships quite difficult, however, the events that take place at the beginning of New Vegas give the courier a reason to stay a little bit longer, therefore giving him/her a reason to make a couple of friends to get the job done.
Not only did New Vegas do a better job in that respect but it also did a better job with the companions themselves. When you meet the various companions they have different views on you and for some you need to gain their trust (Boone is a good example). Then unlike Fallout 3 where you then automatically become BFF's in New Vegas some companions (like Boone) will still not fully trust you until they witness you doing specific tasks. All of the companions have a "personal" quest which usually involves gaining trust from them or taking them to various places.
EDIT: Oh there's a mistake in this article. In New Vegas some companions do in fact have houses where you can go and they can help you out. Raul is a perfect example, if you go to his house he can provide repairing services. Also although she does not neccessarily run up to you, Veronica is very excited when you propose travelling together.
Plus New Vegas felt much more like a RPG, the courier barely had any backstory which meant it was up to the player to decide what kind of player he/she will be. In Fallout 3 pretty much your whole childhood life and family is explained to you, you have almost no control over your character's life, even if you act like an asshole you still have to find your dad, you still have to help him, you have to activate the purifier and you have to side with the Brotherhood of Steel.
In New Vegas you play as a courier, someone who is constantly moving around and visiting different places which would make permament friendships quite difficult, however, the events that take place at the beginning of New Vegas give the courier a reason to stay a little bit longer, therefore giving him/her a reason to make a couple of friends to get the job done.
Not only did New Vegas do a better job in that respect but it also did a better job with the companions themselves. When you meet the various companions they have different views on you and for some you need to gain their trust (Boone is a good example). Then unlike Fallout 3 where you then automatically become BFF's in New Vegas some companions (like Boone) will still not fully trust you until they witness you doing specific tasks. All of the companions have a "personal" quest which usually involves gaining trust from them or taking them to various places.
EDIT: Oh there's a mistake in this article. In New Vegas some companions do in fact have houses where you can go and they can help you out. Raul is a perfect example, if you go to his house he can provide repairing services. Also although she does not neccessarily run up to you, Veronica is very excited when you propose travelling together.
That was a fantastic read...I'm having trouble describing exactly what my reaction is.
So I'll let Bender do it for me
So I'll let Bender do it for me
Ineresting article.
All the talk to the player character being a person in the setting with friends reminded me of Onicron: The Nomad Soul. Though in that case the whole game was based around the concept of "you are borrowing the bodies/lives of these people."
But it was interesting to walk around in the place that was "your" job and have everyone react to you like they'd just talked to you yesterday. Or for me the weirdest part was the fact that the first guy whose life you borrowed, had a wife. She was there in the apartment, you could talk to her or sleep with her and meet her for lunch. She treated you like, and to her you were, her husband.
Not quite the same as "building and breaking relationships" on your own but it was an interesting change from "you are the mysterious stranger who came into town from...Somewhere.
All the talk to the player character being a person in the setting with friends reminded me of Onicron: The Nomad Soul. Though in that case the whole game was based around the concept of "you are borrowing the bodies/lives of these people."
But it was interesting to walk around in the place that was "your" job and have everyone react to you like they'd just talked to you yesterday. Or for me the weirdest part was the fact that the first guy whose life you borrowed, had a wife. She was there in the apartment, you could talk to her or sleep with her and meet her for lunch. She treated you like, and to her you were, her husband.
Not quite the same as "building and breaking relationships" on your own but it was an interesting change from "you are the mysterious stranger who came into town from...Somewhere.