Dissociation with Lead Characters

[AITH]

So I've been toying around with a book idea. Before you roll your eyes, don't worry, I'm sure nothing will come of it. But I was considering how to give my protagonist a dark history. I've been taught never to make a character perfect otherwise the audience won't be able to associate with them. So in that same vein, I figure the darker his past (ie murder), the more emotional baggage I can bring up later that he needs to address. But this got me thinking about some games I have played recently.

(spoilers ahead)

In The Last of Us, Ellie bears her heart to us, telling us that anyone she has ever known or loved has died. Seconds later, Joel makes her emotionally bite the curb basically saying "Too bad, we're going our separate ways" as soon as he drops her off at Tommy's. This was a WTF moment for me. Any sort of emotion at this point was me cheering for him to take to Ellie, but even though this decision was short-lived, it totally tore me away from liking Joel for a while.

Similar things can be said about most of Booker's interactions with Elizabeth for the first third of Bioshock Infinite.

I'm sure there are more examples, but to be honest I haven't played very many games as of late. I guess my question to you is - Do these moments cause you to dissociate with a character to the point of not caring about them or their decisions? Or do you feel that this sort of character development that clashes with the general viewer from time to time is healthy and adds depth to the character? I'm concerned if I go too far down with my character's dark history, nobody will want to cheer for him. I feel this might be one of the reasons they make characters with troubled pasts victims of circumstance instead, but I'd rather not use that stencil.

 

[briankoontz]

It's fine to make a lead character an anti-hero rather than a hero, or even make him boring, if there's some point to that characterization.

Believe that the person you're writing about is real, and you're just telling his story. You're just the messenger, the transcriber of someone else's life. Once you understand the details of who you're writing, you really have no choice but to relate the story in the way best fitting him. The best writers pledge their allegiance not to readers, but to the characters in their own stories. It's them they have to answer to when they betray their well being.

 

[The Wykydtron]

Oh boy, I can rag on the protagonist of Persona 3 again. Awesome!

Basically, it's a game about friendship and teamwork and all that, yet the player character is a fucking dick throughout. I mean literally all game 50+ hours long. Now i'm fine with the loner archetype in a game like that assuming the writers do the obvious thing and develop his character out of that at some point in the game.

Nope, they never got the memo. Here's an average set of conversation choices

*Girl of the day gives you a present*


> Thanks

> 'S ok I guess

> Fuck off scrub, I don't give a fuck

Every single time. The words "I don't care" come up disturbingly often and consistently throughout the game as a choice.

Just... EMOTE DAMN YOU! DO SOMETHING, ANYTHING NICE!

Literally 100% the reason why I don't like Persona 3 anywhere near as 4. P3 has great characters and they all have amazing arcs and developments and there's just this guy, this fucking prick doing NOTHING! NOTHING!

It doesn't help that all the other characters treat you as pretty much an acquaintance instead of a friend most of the time. He's pretty much a trained monkey carrying SEES through all the boss battles and fuck all else.

You need to max your three main attributes in order to even start three party member Social Links. Yukari, Mitsuru and I think Fuuka. Y'know three of the most important characters in the game? Want to tell me why you locked them behind hours and hours of grind? No? Ok...

Also you have to start a huge harem just to 100% the game because there's no "just friends" way of maxing female links like in 4. In 4 it's a choice, in 3 it's an obligation.

Basically, the actual mechanics of the game in my mind actively reinforces what an unlikable cockgobbler the MC is.

 

[Hero of Lime]

I admit, I'm a bit of a sucker for main characters. If the main character does something awful or wrong even in my own eyes, I probably won't dislike them enough to stop playing/reading/watching their story. That's not to say there are main characters I don't like, but most of the time I can't help but root for whoever the author is telling me to support.

With your example of Joel, even if I found his attitude cruel to Ellie in that scene, I understood his character to be abrasive and generally sour towards everyone and everything around him. Plus I figured that sooner or later if Joel and Ellie did split up, they would meet up again anyway and finish the story together.

 

[Giest4life]

You know, you don't even have to accept the hero-antihero paradigm. Why not just have an interesting protagonist and an interesting antagonist? The Malazan Book of the Fallen did this really well.

 

[WoW Killer]

I think this is a valid point. A game is different from a novel, because you get a certain amount of control over it. If you are completely disassociated with a character then you won't gain as much satisfaction in taking control of them.

That's not to say that your protagonists have always got to be saints. In fact a flawed character is almost always more interesting. But I think there's a limit to how much of a dick a character can be before you lose that association, and that limit is a bit further forward for a game than it would be for a film or a book.

One game I noticed this in was L.A. Noire, and of course that was a very film-esque story. No spoilers, but anybody that's played it will know the bit I'm talking about: at one point your character goes off and does something and you're just left thinking "Why did he do that? What an idiot. What a twat". I remember thinking that if it was a film it might have worked a bit better. You're in control through most of it, but then the game takes that control away via a cutscene just so that your character can do something really stupid without you being able to stop it. To make matters worse, you're soon put back in control again so that everyone else can talk shit to you about the things you've just done. It's like you're being punished for a decision that wasn't yours. And you're literally punished, like you have to ride in a shittier car and stuff.

What's better I think is when you have some sort of theme of redemption. In other words, all the really dickish stuff happens in the past, and you as the player gets to be the one to correct it all. That way you get a flawed and interesting character, but you still get that association because you get to push the character towards recovery.

Going back to L.A. Noire, there's a running theme throughout about the main characters actions during the war. And yeah, he's a complete dick back then too. But to me, that didn't matter so much. That all happened before I started playing. If the rest of the game was more of a redemption thing then I think it could have worked a lot better. So what caused the disassociation for me, specifically, was that the character made this deeply dickish act while I was supposed to be in control of him. If that makes sense.

 

[TehCookie]

I see it as good if it's understood why they made the decision. I never think of myself as the MC (though that may also have to do with every videogame character being extremely unrelatable and the player having limited controls over cutscenes and stuff) however I do roleplay as the character. Having different viewpoints I don't agree with will not make me hate a character. Making a stupid decision for no reason will make me hate them, and that's not a good thing or adding depth to a character.

Part of depth of a character to me is how their past and mindset influences who they are and how they make decisions, and how current events change that.

 

[Miyenne]

I find characters who've lead totally peaceful, boring normal lives more interesting. Cause when the shit hits the fan they honestly have no idea what to do and you can go any way with them.

If you're going to go down the road where there was something that defines the character, it defines them. It's more difficult to write someone who's controlled by their past, but if you have the talent to write how they evolve and move beyond that, it would be great.

 

[Fractral]

Oh boy, I can rag on the protagonist of Persona 3 again. Awesome!

Basically, it's a game about friendship and teamwork and all that, yet the player character is a fucking dick throughout. I mean literally all game 50+ hours long. Now i'm fine with the loner archetype in a game like that assuming the writers do the obvious thing and develop his character out of that at some point in the game.

Nope, they never got the memo. Here's an average set of conversation choices

*Girl of the day gives you a present*


> Thanks

> 'S ok I guess

> Fuck off scrub, I don't give a fuck

Every single time. The words "I don't care" come up disturbingly often and consistently throughout the game as a choice.

Just... EMOTE DAMN YOU! DO SOMETHING, ANYTHING NICE!

Literally 100% the reason why I don't like Persona 3 anywhere near as 4. P3 has great characters and they all have amazing arcs and developments and there's just this guy, this fucking prick doing NOTHING! NOTHING!

It doesn't help that all the other characters treat you as pretty much an acquaintance instead of a friend most of the time. He's pretty much a trained monkey carrying SEES through all the boss battles and fuck all else.

You need to max your three main attributes in order to even start three party member Social Links. Yukari, Mitsuru and I think Fuuka. Y'know three of the most important characters in the game? Want to tell me why you locked them behind hours and hours of grind? No? Ok...

Also you have to start a huge harem just to 100% the game because there's no "just friends" way of maxing female links like in 4. In 4 it's a choice, in 3 it's an obligation.

Basically, the actual mechanics of the game in my mind actively reinforces what an unlikable cockgobbler the MC is.

I've heard the FeMC is much better for this, but she's only in P3P and is also considered non canon for various good reasons. If you think the Persona 4 MC is good, play Devil Survivor 2- the MC in that game gets a huge number of actually pretty good dialogue choices, as well as having his own mini social link style thing which has big impacts on gameplay and the story. (As in, if a character likes you or hates you a lot then they will act differently towards you at certain key points). It is, in my opinion, what an Atlus MC should be like.
Anyhoo, any JRPG where I don't control everything the main character says. In Atlus games everything the MC says is an option. Even if there is something the character has to say to continue the story they will either give you a dialogue choice or do something like 'you explained how your TV tried to eat you.' This means that you are never made to say anything, so in persona 4 I actually felt like the MC was me. Contrast this to FFVII, which I like, where Cloud is an unlikeable idiot. Come on, I'm playing as him, shouldn't I get a say in what he does? It feels like I just wheel him from place to place while watching the story.

 

[Tom_green_day]

So I've been toying around with a book idea. Before you roll your eyes, don't worry, I'm sure nothing will come of it. But I was considering how to give my protagonist a dark history. I've been taught never to make a character perfect otherwise the audience won't be able to associate with them. So in that same vein, I figure the darker his past (ie murder), the more emotional baggage I can bring up later that he needs to address. But this got me thinking about some games I have played recently.

I think that's quite a used plot point. As in, it's done a shit-tonne in every possible style.
I don't ever feel the need to associate with the main character, but I think if the devs want me to feel emotion towards him, he has to be fairly ideal as a person. Like I felt towards Shepard because (I chose all his options therefore) everything he did was what I would do in that situation. On the other hand I didn't feel much towards Niko Bellic because every time he made a decision I was screaming 'no you fucking idiot' so I didn't feel for him as much as a character.
An interesting example is John Marston: He had a bad backstory- he'd murdered and raped and stolen as part of a gang (this isn't spoilers, surely?) so obviously he wasn't a 'good' character, but in the game he always acted politely and treated well those who deserved it, so I always felt some compassion towards him as it's something I'd do. When characters rage at people they barely know, it means I can't relate to them as I'd never to do that.
Whoah, wall of text much.

 

[Ratties]

There is nothing wrong with a character who is a straight up asshole. People always feel that the main character needs to somehow do good deeds here and there to be likable. It's bullshit. Give you God of War as an example. I liked the fact that Kratos was a doushbag. It was refreshing. Sure he breaks down ever once in awhile, he quickly shrugs it off and goes back into asshole mode. The universe needs more doushbag heroes, not everything can be pizza and oral sex.
[http://photobucket.com/images/kratos]

 

[AITH]

at one point your character goes off and does something and you're just left thinking "Why did he do that? What an idiot. What a twat". I remember thinking that if it was a film it might have worked a bit better. You're in control through most of it, but then the game takes that control away via a cutscene just so that your character can do something really stupid without you being able to stop it. To make matters worse, you're soon put back in control again so that everyone else can talk shit to you about the things you've just done. It's like you're being punished for a decision that wasn't yours. And you're literally punished, like you have to ride in a shittier car and stuff.

This pretty much sums up what I would like to avoid. I agree that a lot of games take away control from the player, force the character to mess up, then give you back control along with your shit sandwich saying, "mmmm, now isn't that tasty?". And while it isn't necessarily the same thing, I feel this can happen in books as well. Such as in Harry Potter when Ron up and leaves. I sit there thinking, "Now, if I had been the one talking, I would have handled that much better. But way to go scarface, you just lost your best friend." And these things jump out at me and continue to do so each time until I get to the point where I'm thinking that the book/movie/game would have been so much better if only _____ had happened instead.

But maybe I just feel this way because I feel there was no point to what happened. What end was served / point was made when Joel acted that way towards Ellie? What did Ron leaving actually contribute to the plot (you could argue he brought back intel, but him arriving just in time to pull Harry out of the lake is too much of coincidence and less of a direct effect)? Maybe they are commentaries on the human condition, maybe they are inserted for filler or to increase the dramatic complexity, or maybe it was an idea that was never fully fleshed out and contributes to a bit of sagging middle syndrome.

What's better I think is when you have some sort of theme of redemption. In other words, all the really dickish stuff happens in the past, and you as the player gets to be the one to correct it all. That way you get a flawed and interesting character, but you still get that association because you get to push the character towards recovery.

And this kind of points to what I was saying a few sentences up, that maybe the key is not to introduce something without a direct purpose for it. Conceptually, I'm planning on having some spiritual/dream sequences similar to Darren Arronofsky's The Fountain that use these elements to relay subconscious viewpoints and character progression as he overcomes this past. I guess I just need to be very careful that I don't introduce any spurious history elements.

 

[FeraIMuse]

I think this is a valid point. A game is different from a novel, because you get a certain amount of control over it. If you are completely disassociated with a character then you won't gain as much satisfaction in taking control of them.

That's not to say that your protagonists have always got to be saints. In fact a flawed character is almost always more interesting. But I think there's a limit to how much of a dick a character can be before you lose that association, and that limit is a bit further forward for a game than it would be for a film or a book.

One game I noticed this in was L.A. Noire, and of course that was a very film-esque story. No spoilers, but anybody that's played it will know the bit I'm talking about: at one point your character goes off and does something and you're just left thinking "Why did he do that? What an idiot. What a twat". I remember thinking that if it was a film it might have worked a bit better. You're in control through most of it, but then the game takes that control away via a cutscene just so that your character can do something really stupid without you being able to stop it. To make matters worse, you're soon put back in control again so that everyone else can talk shit to you about the things you've just done. It's like you're being punished for a decision that wasn't yours. And you're literally punished, like you have to ride in a shittier car and stuff.

What's better I think is when you have some sort of theme of redemption. In other words, all the really dickish stuff happens in the past, and you as the player gets to be the one to correct it all. That way you get a flawed and interesting character, but you still get that association because you get to push the character towards recovery.'

Oh my God, this. I literally yelled at the TV when that certain even happened in LA Noire, and everything you said regarding the game taking control away from you so your character can do something just completely idiotic... yes. That was pretty much the point where I stopped caring about the game and the characters, because why should I? If they're going to be snatched away from me, just to screw up everything that they (and by proxy, I) have been working toward since the beginning of the game, then there's no need for any sort of emotional investment, now is there?

I can say, having played through The Last Of Us, though, that the instant where Joel snaps at Ellie, I didn't really get the idea that I didn't like the guy--I mean I sort of understood why he was doing everything he could to sever himself from her, even if it meant the equivalent of chewing his own arm off in the process. I have to give kudos to the voice-actors, because, at least to me, you *felt* his underlying pain as he was just trying to amputate their budding relationship.

 

[Maximum Bert]

I tend to disassociate with characters more when I am in control of them and they do everything I say because to me they then arent characters they are puppets with no purpose other than to be my virtual slave they have no personality or maybe even a set look beyond what I give them.

If a character in a game goes off and does something I dont like or acts like a complete dick then I may not like them but I feel at least they have a character and they make me feel something towards them even if it is strong dislike.

This is why I almost always dislike character creation in games that need strong characters that are supposed to have a mind and life of their own inside the universe. Of course its all down to the game and how it handles this in the end but usually a puppet character makes it very easy for me to dissociate with them and forget them.

 

[Austin Howe]

Oh boy, I can rag on the protagonist of Persona 3 again. Awesome!

Basically, it's a game about friendship and teamwork and all that, yet the player character is a fucking dick throughout. I mean literally all game 50+ hours long. Now i'm fine with the loner archetype in a game like that assuming the writers do the obvious thing and develop his character out of that at some point in the game.

Nope, they never got the memo. Here's an average set of conversation choices

*Girl of the day gives you a present*


> Thanks

> 'S ok I guess

> Fuck off scrub, I don't give a fuck

Every single time. The words "I don't care" come up disturbingly often and consistently throughout the game as a choice.

Just... EMOTE DAMN YOU! DO SOMETHING, ANYTHING NICE!

Literally 100% the reason why I don't like Persona 3 anywhere near as 4. P3 has great characters and they all have amazing arcs and developments and there's just this guy, this fucking prick doing NOTHING! NOTHING!

It doesn't help that all the other characters treat you as pretty much an acquaintance instead of a friend most of the time. He's pretty much a trained monkey carrying SEES through all the boss battles and fuck all else.

You need to max your three main attributes in order to even start three party member Social Links. Yukari, Mitsuru and I think Fuuka. Y'know three of the most important characters in the game? Want to tell me why you locked them behind hours and hours of grind? No? Ok...

Also you have to start a huge harem just to 100% the game because there's no "just friends" way of maxing female links like in 4. In 4 it's a choice, in 3 it's an obligation.

Basically, the actual mechanics of the game in my mind actively reinforces what an unlikable cockgobbler the MC is.

I'm actually in the early stages right now of a pretty scathing review of that game mostly based on the "social" mechanics, primarily because, as you say, it's a game where no player could ever conceivably identify with the protagonist. He's a dick in that he's really passive, yet the game forces you to BE social, whereas someone like that character would probably spend most of their time doing something else (reading idk) but no gotta do social links to do work in the dungeon etc etc it's pretty bs.

 

[Austin Howe]

I guess my real answer is "I don't need to associate with the player character because even as a player, I am still the audience for the art, not the subject of it." I'd rather a character be consistent and well-written rather than bland, but vaguely likable, which is how most developers approach writing their protagonists. (Which is why most of them are white, male, and apathetic assholes with facial hair like Booker DeWitt because, well.)

Granted my appreciation of games as an art form is heavily informed by a heavy background in film and a light background in literature, but I tend to see all three through the same lens, which is part of the reason I despise concepts like "emergent narrative". (Just learn to write a story! Not that fucking hard!) In other words, I reject pretty much wholesale the values that seem to have come to dominate the Western approach to games narrative and design, none of which is so poisonous as the idea that the audience must always not just identify with the player character, but feel like they are the player character. This is my perspective, but for the most part, I prefer games in the third-person. I enjoy the interactive aspect of games, but when it comes to narrative, I came to observe.

There is the alternative Kojima/Suda51 Japanese Postmodern approach, which I think so far has produced probably the most legitimate works of game art, in which the player themselves is essentially treated as an element of the narrative and of play, which not just justifies but often requires disassociation.

 

[II2]

It's been said before, but the dissociation was actually used to great effect in Spec Ops: The Line. The more bonkers and blood thirsty Cpt. Walker gets, the farther away most players drift from the upstanding soldier that starts the game as your avatar. I really liked how Spec Ops was crafted, in that and other ways.

Frankly I have more of a problem establishing a connection than losing one.

 

[The Wykydtron]

Oh boy, I can rag on the protagonist of Persona 3 again. Awesome!

I'm actually in the early stages right now of a pretty scathing review of that game mostly based on the "social" mechanics, primarily because, as you say, it's a game where no player could ever conceivably identify with the protagonist. He's a dick in that he's really passive, yet the game forces you to BE social, whereas someone like that character would probably spend most of their time doing something else (reading idk) but no gotta do social links to do work in the dungeon etc etc it's pretty bs.

I could really refer to Persona 3 as Persona 4: The Beta. Literally because it does everything P3 tries to do but actually succeeds. The main character is actually likable and sociable and even has a character arc. There must be a reason why the Persona 4 protagonist is nicknamed The BroSwagtagonist and the P3 guy gets nothing. Well, a reason beyond that absolute swag of a walking animation.

The party member Social Links are unlocked over the course of the main story for you to continue whenever you like and the main character bonds rather convincingly with the main party even without doing their Social Links. I assume you haven't got far enough yet but at points in Persona 3 your party members evolve their Personas through like coming to terms with flaws or something then it cuts to your main character, yet again standing in his room doing nothing gg. In 4 they don't evolve until you max their Social Links.

I'm not even going to go into the main story of Persona 4 because I will end up going on about it forever. It's just that amazing.

I like the side characters more in 4 as well.... Ai has a vastly superior Moon Arcana link for example because she is Tsundere as FUCK and i'm sort of into that kinda thing. Also she's a little bit loopy. Just a bit.

 

[lapan]

Oh boy, I can rag on the protagonist of Persona 3 again. Awesome!

I'm actually in the early stages right now of a pretty scathing review of that game mostly based on the "social" mechanics, primarily because, as you say, it's a game where no player could ever conceivably identify with the protagonist. He's a dick in that he's really passive, yet the game forces you to BE social, whereas someone like that character would probably spend most of their time doing something else (reading idk) but no gotta do social links to do work in the dungeon etc etc it's pretty bs.

I could really refer to Persona 3 as Persona 4: The Beta. Literally because it does everything P3 tries to do but actually succeeds. The main character is actually likable and sociable and even has a character arc. There must be a reason why the Persona 4 protagonist is nicknamed The BroSwagtagonist and the P3 guy gets nothing. Well, a reason beyond that absolute swag of a walking animation.

The party member Social Links are unlocked over the course of the main story for you to continue whenever you like and the main character bonds rather convincingly with the main party even without doing their Social Links. I assume you haven't got far enough yet but at points in Persona 3 your party members evolve their Personas through like coming to terms with flaws or something then it cuts to your main character, yet again standing in his room doing nothing gg. In 4 they don't evolve until you max their Social Links.

I'm not even going to go into the main story of Persona 4 because I will end up going on about it forever. It's just that amazing.

I like the side characters more in 4 as well.... Ai has a vastly superior Moon Arcana link for example because she is Tsundere as FUCK and i'm sort of into that kinda thing. Also she's a little bit loopy. Just a bit.

I actually do agree on mostly everything you said, with the exception of the side characters. I vastly enjoyed most of P3s side characters over P4.

[opinion]
Yosuke was basically the same role as Junpei.
Chie didn't have much to her character except her desire to protect others.
Naoto was a typical tomboy.
Yukiko was a cardboard cutout of the ideal japanese woman archetype
Kanji was enjoyable, though his main character problem was actually very similar to Naoto's just with reversed gender.
Margaret was much less enjoyable and more devoid of emotions than Elizabeth. Elizabeth had a really playful and curious nature to herself and was probably my favorite out of both games.

Teddie was pretty unique and fun though.
[/opinion]