Character Development in Video Games

[Zera]

In practically every story in video games (or anything as a matter of fact) one of the key elements is the characters. Some games have it, some dont. Now the question is this: What is the best way to develop characters?

Is it there voices?
There script?
There looks?
There actions?
There story?
The character model in game?
Cutscenes?

What develops characters for you and give some examples and ideas

 

[LordOmnit]

Well, to make a character (especially in a video game) it is best to have some sort of image of them presented (if it's a book or audio, then a description, if it's a visual (TV, movies, video games), then a precise image, but there can be exceptions, like unseen characters). Just for the basis though, they have to have some sort of personality that is presented in the script (be it cutscenes, in-game dialouge, etc.), and their actions also alter the perception of that personality (if they say one thing and do another, if they always do what they say, indecisive, etc.). Also their story influences what one thinks of them, if they had a tragic past and are now happy-go-lucky, then one wonders what's up with that, unless it is explained.
So really it is all of those things combined, but I'd say the most influencing factors are their looks (what easily separates them from the others) and their dialouge and actions.

 

[Automatic Meat [deprecated]]

This greatly depends on what you're trying to achieve. Some games tell a story strictly through predetermined relationships between their characters and events. In these games, your actions only serve to guide a character, or cast of characters, across a scripted story that is told through "cinematic" moments - most, if not all gameplay activities between each of these story-telling moments is rather incidental to the narrative (ie, going through dozens of unrelated quests or combat situations in role-playing games to advance the main character(s) in power so they can beat the next challenge, which will reward them with more "cinematic" moments).

Usually, I prefer the "less is more" type of character development wherein the player, through an avatar, can explore the gameworld and its entities and experience a story that revolves stritcly (or as best as possible) his own interactions, his own success stories or failures. So I can say I'm biased in that regard, of "player meets environment" instead of "player meets scripted events", if only because that really is the fundamental difference and advantage videogames have over other story-telling formats. To make my own story, not play through someone else's half-arsed idea of one. Even if most of its dialogues were canned, I prefer the Deus Ex type of story-telling over the Final Fantasy way of doing things because it takes advantage of something that is unique and squandered by other developers - you and your experience. Everyone will have a different story about Deus Ex, about Fallout, about Bioshock, of how they overcame a given obstacle. That's what makes these games endearing, that you can sit down and chat with blokes across the world who will share their "story" in these games. There's no point in discussing Final Fantasy when everyone saw the exact same story, unless you want to compare how many tears you cried over that godawful anime and emo stuff.

 

[gameloftguy]

Are you referring to character creation or the development of a character throughout the game play? For the former I would say it is the characters look, basic personality and abilities, though not necessarily in that order. With the latter it is the dialogue and actions the character takes throughout the story. Obviously some games give more room to work with for character development but few of them are really open ended.

"To make my own story, not play through someone else's half-arsed idea of one."

The key to being a good gamemaster, and a good RPG, is the ability to mask the latter and make the player believe he is taking part in the former.

 

[LordOmnit]

Well, if you don't know the whole story beforehand, then it doesn't matter as you go through the game and have the story ("someone else's half-arsed idea") revealed to you, since it is the same as anyone giving you multiple options, only you aren't necessarily given the option of choosing between different parts of stories.
And even in that case, only the protagonist's character is changed because everyone else is basically already set in the way they are going to react (even if they change, it still is linear, unlike how the main character can choose to rescue the person, and kill them off before they return them, but if it had been a secondary charcter, then they would have done on or the other to begin with, and not changed their decision on a whim).

 

[Automatic Meat [deprecated]]

The key to being a good gamemaster, and a good RPG, is the ability to mask the latter and make the player believe he is taking part in the former.

How is removing control of the character and making him spout out-of-character lines, or forcing him to fail at a choke point in the story so the character must chase the bad guy for yet another ten planets, one hundred quests and seven boss characters making players believe they are a part of something? That is, other than the writer's idea of a story and the designer's best attempts to give some sense of interaction to something you can't, on the greater scheme of things, interact with?

No matter how much one slices it, a "good gamemaster" is something that is better suited to Pen and Paper, not videogames. It's inherently a Potemkin village of design: high production values, cinematic cutscenes and expensive voice actors may impress but they are hardly conductive to good role-playing, let alone role-playing itself. A good gamemaster knows how to adapt the story to fit their character's actions and roles; there's no such thing in modern computer or console role-playing games.

 

[LordOmnit]

I seem to be missing your point; what game are you talking about? Good RPG's don't do things like that (at least ones that I've played), and they tend to have a fairly well developed, linear, and sensical (in terms of that universe) storyline. Even if you aren't interacting with an intelligent being, it still is easier to put a story out through some forcing, rather than having some random-assed adventures (like human gamemaster RPG-ing and MMORPG's).

 

[Automatic Meat [deprecated]]

Well, if you don't know the whole story beforehand, then it doesn't matter as you go through the game and have the story ("someone else's half-arsed idea") revealed to you, since it is the same as anyone giving you multiple options, only you aren't necessarily given the option of choosing between different parts of stories.

It's not an issue of having the story revealed to me at the writer's pace, it's of having the story shoved down my throat regardless of whatever character I'm role-playing. What does it say about your role in the gameworld that your only choice, as a would-be debonair socialite, is to kill someone to advance in the story? Or of an expert locksmit, who can only attack the guard when he has the means to use subterfuge? It clearly says your role in the story's outcome is basically zilch. You're only there to trigger one event after the other. It doesn't reach the same level of a "Choose Your Own Adventure", and that's saying a lot.

I seem to be missing your point; what game are you talking about? Good RPG's don't do things like that

Almost all contemporary computer or console role-playing games will rob you of character agency to play out some cinematic cutscene, with characters acting out their lines regardless of whatever you may want them to do. The ocasional choice in dialogue doesn't really do anything than give a sense of illusion, and this kind of limitation extends well over dialogue as well.

 

[LordOmnit]

Um... even if you are given the 'choose your own adventure type,' you are still running through a set of predetermined actions, which may or may not be presented in a series of cutsences. And as for that affluent, courteous, gentleman killing someone, it is rarely that simple; rather than just being given the choice to kill someone and taking it, there tend to be circumstances that force them to do things they normally wouldn't if they do them. And the expert locksmith bit is a bit of a strange situation, in that even in linear RPG's if something is that unimportant to the story, then you get the choice of doing whatever the hell you feel like.
And the whole point of doing that 'robbing' of the relationship between you and the character is because it will keep the character in character rather than let you choose to do whatever you wish to do with them, because the character wouldn't actually suddenly start acting all evil at a given point just because he could (e.g.- if you are playing Star Wars: KoToR and are given the option of helping a 'friend' and up until then you have been good, in a real-life situation, you would, and if you were evil up until that point, then chances are you wouldn't (assuming it was just help or don't), and being given the choice not to when good is kind of like saying, "You're character has no soul/heart/mind, and is a lifeless puppet you control for shits and giggles, rather than an 'actual' reasonably well built and seemingly realistic creation,").

 

[Echolocating]

When I think of character development, I immediately gravitate to a meaningful change in key characters. Gaining levels and growing stronger in RPGs is not meaningful. A character whose opinions, morality, and relationships change, for better or worse, seems more meaningful to me. Of course, this is only effective when players actually empathize with characters.

Hotel Dusk was a great DS game with the best character development I've ever encountered.

 

[Automatic Meat [deprecated]]

Um... even if you are given the 'choose your own adventure type,' you are still running through a set of predetermined actions, which may or may not be presented in a series of cutsences. And as for that affluent, courteous, gentleman killing someone, it is rarely that simple; rather than just being given the choice to kill someone and taking it, there tend to be circumstances that force them to do things they normally wouldn't if they do them.

These "circumstances" are anything but that - they're roadblocks, the storyline equivalent of invisible walls to stop your progress because beyond what was designed, there's nothing there. They exist because that's how the developer wants things to happen, not because they need to happen like that. What was Bioshock's highlight? The same as SS2's - the events, the characters, (mostly) everything is up for the player to find out. You don't get locked into a situation and watching events in a weird camera angle. Entities interact between themselves and the gameworld, and you can decide to interact with them or avoid them. It's a slap in the face of anyone defending the kind of constrains that plague character development I'm talking about.

Are there limits? Of course. The trick is to manage those limits without short-changing the player's agency over the character. That story-telling rule of "show, don't tell" still holds water in this case. I want to be shown how my character can interact with someone or something, not being told that he did something or another when I had no saying about it. Show the player he has control and let him exercize it.

And the whole point of doing that 'robbing' of the relationship between you and the character is because it will keep the character in character rather than let you choose to do whatever you wish to do with them, because the character wouldn't actually suddenly start acting all evil at a given point just because he could (e.g.- if you are playing Star Wars: KoToR and are given the option of helping a 'friend' and up until then you have been good, in a real-life situation, you would, and if you were evil up until that point, then chances are you wouldn't (assuming it was just help or don't), and being given the choice not to when good is kind of like saying, "You're character has no soul/heart/mind, and is a lifeless puppet you control for shits and giggles, rather than an 'actual' reasonably well built and seemingly realistic creation,").

It's my character, ergo my decision. If I'm to be given agency over the avatar let me stick to it, instead of trying to role-play my characters for me. It's like telling the player "we'll let you play as you want until we want to show you how AWESOME our story is, your puny decisions up to this point and your role-playing be damned!". And if that's the case, don't bother giving me agency at all other than at the most menial of gameplay artifacts (such as statistical tweaking). Because in that case, there's no contradiction to the concept of free will and forced will.

That it's more "realistic" is an indefensible position since realistically, people have the ability to suddenly change their minds or hide their motives until the time is right. What if my character hides his emotions so it benefits him, and wants to betray people he no longer has use for them when he is given the chance? I can't, because Mr. Designer Man thinks that's not properly role-playing. Bullocks to that.

 

[LordOmnit]

These "circumstances" are anything but that - they're roadblocks...

No, they are plot-points that make it seem reasonable that someone would do the things they are doing for the purpose of the story that is being told. But since you don't like the idea that there is a greater story beyond your character being the device of god (i.e.- you) I suppose I wasted my time typing approximately 371 characters.

That it's more "realistic" is an indefensible position...

Yes, people do have tha ability to change their minds suddenly and without warning, except to those who know what that person is planning, but your point is equally indefensible because it is highly unlikely that that is going to happen, because you aren't given the option of saying what your character's backstory is and suddenly killing your 'allies' when you feel like it lacks credibility. But then again if your character is a marionette with limited emotions who nods randomly, yet is still somehow the leader, I suppose it is more reasonable, since he is a tabula rasa to a degree.

 

[LordOmnit]

Are there limits? Of course. The trick is to manage those limits without short-changing the player's agency over the character...

The idea is that the character isn't 'yours' in games where the story is predetermined, but they are their own entities that do things in their own way of deciding things.

 

[Automatic Meat [deprecated]]

But since you don't like the idea that there is a greater story beyond your character being the device of god (i.e.- you) I suppose I wasted my time typing approximately 371 characters.

I think the waste comes from ASSuming things, seeing as I never stated I don't enjoy a story - just when it gets in the way of a more freeform, player-controlled character development. Which, as I stated previously, is the main advantage the videogame medium has over other mediums which use character development.

but your point is equally indefensible because it is highly unlikely that that is going to happen, because you aren't given the option of saying what your character's backstory is and suddenly killing your 'allies' when you feel like it lacks credibility.

According to who? The designer? The gamer? Limiting role-playing based on what you or someone else thinks is highly unlikely to happen doesn't make it any less likely of happening. The absence of detailed character exposition on behalf of the player isn't a problem - Pen and Paper works just fine without players having to spill their guts to the Gamemaster on how they are going to act. The same applies to computer RPGs. While it's true this particular medium is much more limited when it comes to divining the player's plans, it's not necessary to do so most of the time. In fact, these "unlikely" choices are precisely there to accomodate this - they're last minute paths for people who want to role-play that particular venue.

 

[Automatic Meat [deprecated]]

The idea is that the character isn't 'yours' in games where the story is predetermined, but they are their own entities that do things in their own way of deciding things.

Then that kind of developer should stick to Final Fantasy and leave my role-playing games alone, thank you very much. Either he wants to give me the ability to role-play or wants to me to suffer some concept of story - fine. Do one or the other, not some middle ground which can't decide which side it's on, and that frustrates gamers who sit on either side of the camp.

 

[LordOmnit]

I think the waste comes from ASSuming things [...] According to who? The designer? The gamer? Limiting role-playing based on what you or someone else thinks is highly unlikely to happen doesn't make it any less likely of happening...

Quite right, I am being an ass about it because you seem to only defend personal choice in video games (which is a big point to their appeal) and believe that classic storytelling [EDIT]in games (sorry, I seemed to have skipped that part in the first typing)[/EDIT] is a load of shit. A video game lacks sufficient logical ability to develop backstory to support a character suddenly abandoning good for evil (whether or not that was their original intention), and that is what interacting with humans in RP's (as opposed to RPG's) or writing your own story where you can have everyon be a backstabbing son of a ***** if you want.
And if it seems that I dislike games with choice or if I have actually said that, I apologize, I never intended to dismiss games with choice, but they are far inferior in terms of universal sense to RP-ing with other lifeforms capable of reacting or writing your story, but are still a fun way of altering the traditional story by having it more like a book that at certain points you move on to any other of a set of books depending upon what you want type of story you want to read (which would still be superior to a 'freeform' game because everything would be explained later rather than being like, "(Character) did this," it is, "(Character) did this, (then going on to explain why s/he did it),").

 

[Automatic Meat [deprecated]]

Quite right, I am being an ass about it because you seem to only defend personal choice in video games (which is a big point to their appeal) and believe that classic storytelling [EDIT]in games (sorry, I seemed to have skipped that part in the first typing)[/EDIT] is a load of shit.

On the contrary, I think story is a powerful tool in videogames. I just don't enjoy the concept of story as it is commonly applied in videogames because it's often disassociated from gameplay. Final Fantasy springs to my mind repeatedly because I find it's one of the worse methods of story-telling in videogames. The dialogue, the cutscenes, the long cinematics are never happening because of your role in the gameworld - they're happening because you've activated a trigger that executed the next non (or rarely)-interactive situation to be acted out. If you remove combat from the series, or something that attributes power levels so you can advance, you're basically looking at a long story-driven experience.

Which is fine, but how much does it actually need these disjointed portions of trivial combat in between some chatty characters? And seriously, didn't adventure games used to do this much better and for a longer period of time? Character and plot exposition can be a wonderful thing but I don't think removing agency is necessary. Half-Life 2 illustrates this pretty well. Alyx manages to convey much character and does so without having to force you into a lenghtly sequence where you just watch rather than play. The characters, the events... When it commits to your perspective as a gamer and as something responsible for plot advancement, it does so relentlessly. Would it gain anything from being locked out of control and being shown sequences I can't have a say? Did KoTOR gained anything when I was forced to solve a puzzle to cross a chasm despite my character having a Force Power that enabled him to do long jumps? Does any game, I wonder?

So when I say I can enjoy a good story, I do so when both it and gameplay create a whole rather than excluding one in favour of the other. The example of Bioshock or Deus Ex is that yes, there is an overaching storyline. Yes, you encounter situations where you can't say a damn thing about their course. But the ways in which you can actually have an impact are because of you, your actions, your choices. This doesn't happen as much in computer role-playing games. This isn't to say classic story-telling doesn't have its place in videogames (Planescape: Torment) but if I only wanted classic story-telling I'd migrate to mediums which can offer me that in spades. If the whole point of a videogame, or speficially of a cRPG, is to allow me to play a role in a story I want to play that role, dammit, not watch it. If it's feeling like a glorified interactive movie of the 90's (commonly found on the Sega CD), chances are I'll quit and move on to something else instead. Either tell me a story and do not allow any kind of significant character-driven decision to influence the story's flow (Final Fantasy, Soul Reaver) or go the opposite and give me the liberty to alter the story in meaningful ways that don't cheat me out of character agency in a way that it renders choice and consequence something moot (Metroid Prime, Fallout).

A video game lacks sufficient logical ability to develop backstory to support a character suddenly abandoning good for evil (whether or not that was their original intention), and that is what interacting with humans in RP's (as opposed to RPG's) or writing your own story where you can have everyon be a backstabbing son of a ***** if you want.

I'm sure there are mechanisms to develop a backstory that can be implemented during the game proper in a way that, by the time you reach the endgame you'll feel like everything your character went through up until that moment is the backstory. Defining morality could be achieved by, as the character was developed in a specific way, more options reflecting his morality would open while options that were the exact opposite would be closed. In essence, the more of a violent, evil character you're role-play, the less chances to role-play someone good or kind would be given by the game. I know this particular example is not without criticism (in fact, it goes against my defense of so-called "out of character" options being made available for players who added role-playing options at a given time) but falls much more in line with the concept of presenting a logical experience - based on how your character has been role-played - than excluding options based on what the storyteller thinks is right and ends up being wrong.

Choices are superior to determinism not in the sense they create a better story, but that they create a better actor in the story. And that's how I feel role-playing games, and games in general, should try to do. If for no other reason, then because they are games.

 

[ccesarano]

In practically every story in video games (or anything as a matter of fact) one of the key elements is the characters. Some games have it, some dont. Now the question is this: What is the best way to develop characters?

Is it there voices?
There script?
There looks?
There actions?
There story?
The character model in game?
Cutscenes?

What develops characters for you and give some examples and ideas

I feel that the forums are a really inadequate place to discuss something like this. This is one of those things where I feel you need to actually be talking with someone.

I think, Zera, that, once a week or so, you should gather people together on Skype or someplace where everyone can talk with microphones, and just open up such a discussion and record it, then link it on the forums for everyone to enjoy. Almost like a podcast, but less editing and more people involved to create more chaos. Either way, I think that would be a great way to take these questions one step further, because...well, this would basically ask me what my entire philosophy is on writing a story.

So I'll try to keep it simple:
- The characters must be flawed in some way, that way we know they are human
- The lead character or characters should confront that flaw
- After confronting, they must grow from it and become a better person than before
- They don't get rid of their flaw, as that would not be realistic. Instead, they learn how to deal with it.

I could go further on, but that's some of my basic thoughts. I also feel that the hero and the villain should be the same yet opposites in some way, and I'd even love to reference how Tad Williams' Memory, Sorrow and Thorn series ends as that has one of the best confrontations ever. He really separates Simon from pretty much any other hero with it.

Also, that flaw may not exactly be negative. For example, Ramza of Final Fantasy Tactics. One of his flaws tends to be his optimism. It causes him to actually end up being used, though he never realizes it. I'd love to describe this further, but I fear it would only spoil some of it. In the end, though, he is a completely good character. Lawful good, if you will. Yet, several times, he ends up being used in some manner, partly due to his trust, and also due to how predictable he is for being lawful good.

I'm going to stop now, though. As I said, there's way too much I could say on this topic.

 

[LordOmnit]

Really the games are only story-driven because you think that a video game story should put you in absolute control of a/the characters' actions to be character driven. Plot-wise, most video games are character driven, just not in the sense that you are the end all of the characters' decisions. They are pre-produced characters that have their own history, motives, and personalities, you just aren't able to influence them really. The only real way that a story can be character-driven (in the sense I am led to believe you consider character-driven stories to be based on your own definition) is for there to be a human on the other end acting as game-master, controlling non-character controlled elements of the game. The definition you gave me is more like player-driven story, which, I'm sure, is what you meant to say, and that can be acomplished like...
>Created a logic system wherein you would be given a specific setting, and the ability to create one or multiple characters, produce a backstory >from a given set of events, and control them in the world, with each other important character having some semi-advanced AI applied to them, >and the majority of the random NPC's would have some more watered down react-to-circumstances AI, some initial story setup, and then throw >you out into the world, with accomplishing certain things giving you an ending or the option of finishing.
And most of the time games aren't trying to cheat you out of character agency (and the whole game is generally character-driven, rather than player-driven again), it is just that it isn't very condusive to have a murderously complex player-controlled freeform game for everything. It takes away from the game design elements in that they have to severly cut back on the amount of general story is put into a game, they have to have enemies that would make sense in any situation, and they would react appropriately to your choices.
And choices don't create a better actor most of the time, because the one who you are chosing for is almost always (like I said before) some blank-faced doll who runs around when you tell him to (well, that is the point of a game, but whatever), and does what you tell him to. I am interested in seeing how well Mass Effect is done though, because as far as I am led to believe it will be a well done version of a player-driven game, rather than one where all the characters have little care for what you do (e.g.- I played the good little boy in KoTOR 2 and no matter how good I acted HK-47, Mandalore, and that floating drone only complained a little, even though they should have been like, "You're dumb, bye,"). Then again, that example really only applies if you thought that KoTOR was well done, otherwise it was pointless.
I think I forgot one or two things, but oh well...

 

[gameloftguy]

In lieu of reading most of these posts, which seem to be harping on the same few points I would suggest Automatic Meat might want to go and see if he can find an open ended game like Arcanum. In that game you can literally make up a character and do virtually whatever you want. Most RPGs fail at that but there are a few that can do this, and yes technically it should easier for a Gamemaster to accomplish this in Pencil & Paper though I would guesstimate that the proportion that do succeed equal the proportion of RPG computer games that have succeeded as well.

I mean your examples only listed the very worst that an RPG could produce not the good that can come from one so it is a very slanted point.

I made my assumption and are prepared to live by it.