Character depth

[Manji187]

Morality threads are overdone but there are still plenty of interesting aspects of the debate. One of them is character depth.

Some questions:

Have you ever played a game in which the protagonist does what he or she believes (i.e. not your projections) to be good while the consequences/ implications of his or her actions could be labeled evil? For the dramatic effect: the protagonist doesn't notice this or refuses to acknowledge this.

Or did the protagonist ever have to choose between two evils without being able to discern the lesser of the two? For the dramatic effect: that the choice was one between two evils only becomes evident later on.

Or has the protagonist ever found him/ herself in circumstances in which doing evil was the only (viable) way out, but doing so would entail him/ her being forced to do even more evil....until *gasp* it becomes second nature ("normal") so the protagonist doesn't realise he/ she has changed.

Or how about the theme of guilt and remorse...has anyone seen it accurately (psychologically) portrayed in a game?

If you've often had to answer "No" ... why do you think this is so?

 

[Blueruler182]

Um... Alex Mercer was a resounding yes to a few of those.

Played a game where he believes he's good while doing evil. Check.

Choose between two evils without noticing either as evil. Check, if you count murdering everyone multiple choice. It's really more of a "which weapon will you murder them with" choice, but still.

Evil becomes second nature. Check.

Also, Kratos. That's one evil bastard.

And I haven't seen guilt realistically in a game yet, but I'm not that big a gamer, so no surprise there.

 

[TriggerHappyAngel]

In Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance...

Spoiler

Naesala (the king of Kilvas) sells his best friend and attacks his allies to save his own country

 

[Count Igor]

Spoiler: Dragon Age

Loghain.
He sacrificed his friend, king and respected ruler to save the country, and it backfired on him, leaving him shaken to his core.
Now, I know he isn't the MAIN character, but you can still play as him, so he kinda counts.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

James Sunderland from Silent Hill 2 comes to mind and Heather from SH3, especially when she finds out that she might not being killing monsters but actual people.

Alex Mercer and Kratos for sure.

But most games that I've played is where you just build a character and deal with morality issues later in the game, kinda like Dragon Age, and any Fallout game I've played.

 

[GiantRaven]

I think Alpha Protocol's Mike Thorton could, depending on how you play him, apply here.

 

[Fishyash]

I haven't seen many games where the story is a tragedy (or if there is, there's the option of a 'good ending').

I don't really know why though. I guess developers like the 'good guy protragonist' more.

I personally think the main character should not have many depths before the game. In an RPG he should have little/no depth so you can build your own depths throughout the game. I don't know, it just feels you're... less in control of what you can do. Freedom seems to be a good trait in lots of games, and if you want a game like that you need to strip the main character down and make sure he can do whatever he wants (with consequences of course).

I also think that supporting characters in a game are really cool if they have suprising hidden depths, or evolve dynamically as you progress through the game. The more fleshed out important supporting characters are, the better. Although it would also be nice if you had lots of control over your supporting characters too. Personally I think having it either way would be great.

Well that's my rambling done.

 

[AceAngel]

Ace: Dragon Age...'nuff said.

Angel: Um, I would have to say...um...maybe the team for CB's Jericho?

Luigi: Jade Empire...you know, master and student dilemma.