Multiple playable characters in games. Better or not?

[Faluva]

GTA5 has made this interesting jump recently from 1 to 3 playable characters with underlying and crossing storylines. Entire arch is interesting, yet it has its flaws at times. But that's natural, assuming GTA wasn't always about great story.

Other example - large-scale military games: Arma, Operation Flashpoint, Battlefield. Most of the time, player can experience multiple roles, covering air, ground, armor. In Battlefield 3 case, campaign wasn't interesting because it felt too static.
However, Arma or OFP (2001) were terrific for dynamic encounters and enemy's unpredictability, also RPG-like gameplay-story design.

Question is - do you prefer games with multiple characters? Why or why not? What are the tendencies of the future? Will games offer more and more content, so inclusion of several arches is a logical progression? Does preference has anything to do with emotional aspects (attachment, etc)?

 

[Evonisia]

I personally think it can work, but the writers need to develop the characters, and having multiple playable characters means even more work has to go into characterising each one, giving them personal flaws while trying to keep them consistent. GTA V would be an example of how not to do it, with the characters being so inconsistent that they'll drop their rivalries for a friendly chat one mission and be at eachover's by the end without any context.

 

[P912]

I hate to give a vague answer but it really depends on the game. Games like Call of Duty and Battlefield often feature international conflicts where multiple characters contrive reasons for the player to take part in both undercover operations in Yemen and a proxy war in Angola.

Not saying this is successful, as this can result in confused players who lose track of the who they're supposed to be sympathising or engage with. And games like Spec Ops The Line which are about the journey of one person can lose their impact and intensity when we are flipping between perspectives every other level.

I hate to say this, but IMO it really depends on the game. I guess the core tenets to remember is that single character gives focus and is better for personality building and emotional journeys, whereas multiple characters gives variety and scope. For example, in COD Black Ops 2 you get the opportunity to play as an undercover agent with Raul Menendez, but the agent has been featured in earlier levels as a valuable source of information, Menendez has been established as ruthless and clever, and you are in constant contact with more familiar characters. The resulting level then feels less like a spontaneous unplanned detour and more like a different side to a scenario we've all seen before. Not that BLOPS 2 is the pinnacle of storytelling, its just that the handful of talented people at Treyarch probably felt that this would be a good opportunity to view a conflict through the eyes of a double agent, probably the same people who decided to make the villain sympathetic before he morphed into a damn pantomime bad guy and probably the same group who felt it would be nice to step out of the shoes of a burly white military non-character.

 

[Lieju]

Depends on the game.

Eternal Darkness, for example has 12 playable characters, and takes place over a 2000-year period. It fits perfectly for the game and the story.

Some games can be much more about a journey one character goes through.

But having several playable characters also can help the designers to take risks, either in play-style or in their characterization.
I very much doubt GTA would have had Trevor as a playable character if he would have had to be the only option.

 

[Maximum Bert]

As others have said depends entirely on the game for a lot it dosent really matter but for a fighting game there better be multiple playable characters no matter how good the game is if there was only one character no one would play for long.

 

[Saelune]

Depends on the game and story. I hope GTA never goes back to just one playable character. I also like games like Dynasty Warriors an Kingdom Under Fire where the stories are separated segments of one large story, especially when you get to play both sides.

Millitary shooters though, don't tend to make it great. Mostly cause the characters aren't really fleshed out, or different.

 

[shrekfan246]

Though, there are games that do multiple playable characters poorly. The Sonic franchise is one example. If you don't believe me, try playing Sonic Adventure 2's Dark storyline up to the Security Vault stage, a treasure hunting level staring Rouge the Bat.

Or, hell, just try playing Sonic Adventure 2's story mode. Only the Sonic/Shadow levels are really actually worth replaying, and to unlock free-play you need to go through basically the entire story, which is monumentally worse than even Sonic Adventure by virtue of forcing you into playing each character in a unified, linear fashion instead of allowing you the choice of which character's story you want to clear individually.

Normally, it takes over twenty-to-thirty minutes to complete a treasure hunting level, due to the constantly randomized treasures, giant, labyrinthine maps, unhelpful hint-terminals that deduce points off of your overall rank when used, and equally-unhelpful radar. Security Vault, unfortunately, had a time limit of five minutes, which was not, not, NOT enough time to get it done.

It is still a bit funny to me how Adventure 2 managed to actually make the treasure hunting missions worse, since they aren't quite so unbearable in the previous game.

Overall, Sega tried to do multiple playable characters in the Sonic franchise, but they usually come off as gimmicky and unoriginal, but at the same time required rather than optional. With the possible exceptions of Sonic 3 & Knuckles and the Sonic Advance trilogy, the playable character don't offer new ways to resolve the same problem, the same way as various character classes in most RPGs or team-based shooters. Instead, they just come off as cheap market novelties that sometimes even hail from entirely different genres, like Gamma's shooting levels and Big's fishing levels from Sonic Adventure 1.

Another example is the teamwork from Sonic Heroes. The flight and power characters could've just as easily been used to let players find alternate routes to the same goal, like Tails' flight and Knuckles' super-strength in Sonic 3 & Knuckles. Instead, they just come off as unnecessary add-ons that don't work, yet at the same time are required instead of optional. That, and the four teams only differed in difficult level; you could just as easily take out three of the teams while leaving only Team Sonic, and it would've been enough as a result, because all four teams played almost the same way as each other.

Indeed, one of my least favorite things about the multiple character playstyles in the more modern Sonic titles is that they try changing up the formula of Sonic gameplay. Knuckles is pretty much my favorite character to play as in Sonic 3 & K or Sonic Advance, but seeing him in Adventure-Heroes is just sad.

And I think you've touched on why I like Heroes, but think it falls a little flat in retrospect. If there were 3+ ways to navigate each level (one for Speed, one for Flying, one for Power, maybe more for mixtures of each), it would've been a much more unique and interesting experience. And you can see a few instances of where they had interesting ideas that couldn't be completely panned out before release, like with Espio and his ability to run solo after camouflaging.

Technically, when done well multiple playable characters can lead to great gameplay variety, so that no two players played the same way as each other. One player, for example, could focus on advancing onto the enemy's base, while the other player could just as easily waste his opponent's resources in an attrition battle.

Agreed. It's all in the context of the game and the developer making it, I think. If a game can call for having multiple playable characters, then I'm all for it.

I think Devil May Cry is actually a good example of both. In DMC3: Special Edition, you unlock the ability to play as Vergil after you've beaten the game as Dante, and Vergil plays completely differently but still through all of the same levels (which I think is the one stumble DmC had with the Vergil DLC). But aside from the combat mechanics, everything still remains pretty much the same, which means that once you've gotten used to it, playing as Vergil is just as if not more satisfying as playing through with Dante.

Then you look at Devil May Cry 4, which I would consider a big improvement upon DMC3 if not for one thing: The enemies. The addition of Nero's demon arm, while adding a fair bit to the overall combat, makes the Dante section of the game an absolute pain because most of the enemies in the game appear to have been designed purely to fight against Nero. There's also the fact that the Dante section is just going backwards through the Nero sections, but I think that's more an issue with laziness or lack of funding rather than a problem with multiple playable characters.

 

[Black Reaper]

I like multiple chars when they have different play styles that add to the game, i love the extra playable characters in the Ds Castlevania trilogy(especially Albus), and i love playing as Vergil in the new Dmc, the Tales Series also does this pretty well, you can play as anyone who is currently in your team, and they all play differently, in some games, they are actualy more fun to use, or deeper than the main char (like Judith in Vesperia)

 

[Rebel_Raven]

You mean games that aren't fighters with large casts? Koei (now Tecmo-Koei) makes it work with their "warriors" series, and it's offshoots. Outside of Fighters, Koei might just be the best at it, hands down with huge rosters of people that generally stand out from one another somehow.

Give the characters some diversity, and make sure that diversity doesn't arbitrarily handicap a person (unless it's like a hard mode intent) I'm not sure what can go wrong.

Having the ability to be all "I'm not in the mood for this character anymore. I think I'll play as this one!" is pretty awesome.

Still, it's all case by case. Sometimes one character is best for the plot/story. Sometimes more is better.

 

[RJ 17]

I like them because, so long as they're done well, they can add much more depth and perspective than a normal game where you're playing as just one character.

Spoiler: Sticking with the example of GTA5.

With Franklin, we get to experience the story from a guy who thinks that the best way to stop being such a hood-rat gangster is to "level up" and start pulling off big-time jobs. But as his ex-girlfriend is quick to point out: just because he's getting paid more and has a nice house doesn't mean that he's actually changed: he's still just a hood-rat gangster.

With Michael we get the perspective of someone who used to be "in the game" but got out of it. He's jaded, having retired from the only thing he was ever really good at and is just pissing away his existence and building up anger issues. This is why he feels so exhilarated at getting "back in the game", but for the most part: he's just trying to come out of this alive.

With Trevor we get the perspective of a meth/gun dealer who finds out that his best friend/partner who he thought was dead is actually still alive and apparently back to doing heist jobs without him. All Trevor is wanting to do is expand his illicit empire and he knows that Michael still has connections that can help him do that.

Now you can argue how well these three different perspectives are pulled off or if they're even three different perspectives worth looking at, but that's how I interpreted the game.

One of my favorites is, as I mentioned in an Eternal Nothingness thread about multiple story-lines, AvP2 for the PC. Three separate storylines all woven together as one in a very well-executed fashion. By playing through the Marine, Predator, and Alien campaigns, you get a clearly established timeline of events that paints a grand picture of just what went down on that planet. I can honestly say I've never been more impressed by a FPS's story as I was with AvP2's.

I also like the Legacy of Kane games, though they're a bit harder to follow between what you experience as Raziel and Kane...but that's mainly because a huge part of the plot revolves around jumping back and forth through time. Still, it's fun to see it all come together in LoK: Defiance.

 

[krazykidd]

I personally think it can work, but the writers need to develop the characters, and having multiple playable characters means even more work has to go into characterising each one, giving them personal flaws while trying to keep them consistent. GTA V would be an example of how not to do it, with the characters being so inconsistent that they'll drop their rivalries for a friendly chat one mission and be at eachover's by the end without any context.

I disagree. People are at times inconsistant and hypocritical, boredeline extreme bipolar . GTA just have the characters on an extreme , for satire purposes most likely. I have actually met people that act like that in real life .

OT: I prefer having multiple characters, as long as none of them are overly annoying.

 

[Roxas1359]

It depends on the games really. For example, if it were a more story driven game then I'd hope that each of the characters have depth and could actually be likeable in some way. For JRPGs like FFXII I have no problem since nothing is really lost story wise.
For plaformers like say Mario I like to do that, just as long as I'm not forced to play as the fat plumber and I can choose to play as say, the handsome green and tall brother who actually has depth and has a personality...>.>

 

[Foolery]

Multiple characters? Hell yeah. But I'm thinking of crowd-fighting games like Sengoku Basara or Dynasty Warriors. It's a staple of the formula.

 

[Rariow]

It's really 100% dependent on the developer's vision. I recently re-played Silent Hill 2, and I realized how central it is to that game that you only ever play as James. That game is intrinsically about James, in every sense from the mechanics to the writing. Having you play anyone else in the main game would destroy it, by undermining both the story's focus on James's psyche and in a mechanical sense conveying the message that these other people around you are the same as you, cutting out the intense loneliness permeating the game. I know there's a side-campaign with another character that was released later, but that's just a diversion that has little to do with the main story.

On the other hand, some games really do work better with multiple protagonists. I haven't played GTA V yet, but I hear that works really well for the game. Off course, something like a fighting game just makes no sense with just one character.

I guess it comes down to what the developers want to make the game about. There's certain themes that don't work well with multiple protagonists, and there's certain themes that work worse with a single protagonist. I don't think it's better or not, it's just different.

 

[Something Amyss]

I like the way GTA V does it most of the time, but it lacks something. I don't know. The fact that all three stories interlace is both a strength and a weakness, far as I'm concerned.

I like player choice, and I'm a fan of the Koei games with large casts (I think the roster is now actually higher than the population of most major countries).

The flip side is that there are games where I never really identify or distinguish individuals. COD games just have protagonists who largely blur together for me. Likely in part because they're all floating guns in the parts where I actually play them.

GTA V would be an example of how not to do it, with the characters being so inconsistent that they'll drop their rivalries for a friendly chat one mission and be at eachover's by the end without any context.

GTA V is actually fairly consistent in the consistency of its characters inconsistencies. Michael and Trevor are old friends with an old grudge. That leads to friction and quite logically puts them both at odds with and in the court of each other at points. Add in Frank acting as the voice of reason, external forces beyond their control and most (maybe all) of the instances make sense.

 

[TheRiddler]

Here's the thing. I don't mind the idea of multiple characters. I don't even care if they play like more or less the same character. Sometimes creating completely different gameplay for each character makes the game worse as a whole, as it establishes a schizophrenic tone and spreads things too thin, leaving all of the gameplay seem unpolished.

For me, the issue of multiple characters is largely a narrative one. And so, it really depends on what story you're trying to tell. To quote Rariow on Silent Hill 2:

I recently re-played Silent Hill 2, and I realized how central it is to that game that you only ever play as James. That game is intrinsically about James, in every sense from the mechanics to the writing. Having you play anyone else in the main game would destroy it, by undermining both the story's focus on James's psyche and in a mechanical sense conveying the message that these other people around you are the same as you, cutting out the intense loneliness permeating the game.

Similarly, Spec Ops: the Line was a game that focused heavily on the psychological horror inflicted on Captain Walker through his own eyes, as you begin to see the atrocities that he is maneuvered into committing and the brutality that he begins to develop. As the game progresses, he metamorphoses from hero to horror. It's about Walker's descent from a position of confidence and bravado to complete uncertainty about his actions. The game absolutely would have been hurt if the narrative perspective switched between him and his squadmates, as this game, like Silent Hill 2, was largely a character study centered around the development of one character.

However, in GTA V, the three main characters thing uses an interesting angle. Franklin is is an enterprising career criminal. Michael and Trevor are the two extremes of how he can turn out. Either successful and relatively levelheaded, albeit miserable, like the former. Or honorable and hedonistic, albeit completely mentally unbalanced, like Trevor.

So, yes. It really does depend on the game in question, and whether it can thematically tie the multiple playable characters together thematically, while giving them distinct personalities.

 

[norashepard]

I love multiple characters up to and until I find one that I like the most. After that, I tend to only want to play as them, and in many games, that isn't possible (because, for example, that character is only usable in certain places), so I just get kind of bored of the rest of the game.

In games where that doesn't happen though, I am the happiest camper, and I think it adds to the culture surrounding the game overall, because each player will have a different experience.