No Gods, No Kings. . . No Men? The Player Character in BioShock

[Phifty]

[note: if you have not yet played BioShock and plan to, you may want to wait on reading this, as it contains spoilers]




As an Xbox Diablo manual a few times. . . I love the story in that thing). I have a number of friends who are enjoying their replays of the game, why was I having some much trouble making myself push through the second run of BioShock, a game which I thoroughly enjoyed on the first play through.


To figure it out, I first through of what it is that attracts me to those things I re-read. Humor, plot, philosophy. BioShock has those in spades. What was missing? Then I realized the very thing that would have me glued to even the crappiest TV show was something that BioShock lacked -- character development. Not only was the main player character shallower then most puddles, but his choices were one-dimensional and the supporting cast seemed to have developed at some point, but when the game starts, they pretty much stay glued into place on their character arcs.


The problem isn't the linier plot, that's common enough in games and in BioShock it's (at least) half the point. No, at issue is the player character. The "faceless voiceless nameless dork," to use Yahtzee's term, whom you play as throughout the game lacks any sort of development arc. Here is a man with chains tattooed on his wrists, who is in a plane crash, stumbles across a wondrous underwater city, is beset by strange people and thought-provoking ideas, but he barely reacts. Yes, the story explains, he is programmed, but even so, he has human elements and a memory and therefore some sort of personality. It seems wholly unlikely that Mr. Chain-Wrists would take this in stride. There might be a little resistance towards the end of the game, but the plot and the game's mechanics dictate a static character.


This odd resistance towards character development is built into the game at every level. For example, when I started off the game, I killed the ADAM and the Little Sisters themselves, I came to realize my mistake. These were little girls after all, they had been altered and their lives destroyed, but I had the power to save them. If this were a novel, it would be the classic turning point for Chain-Wrists' character arc: an epiphany or revelation. Yet, with the exception of a change in basic rewards, there was no change in how the game reacted to me. The end of the game came along and any thought I had invested into my character was nixed, as it became apparent that harvesting even one Little Sister would put me on the path to become an unstoppable world-killing super-villain. They had made the path between good and evil a binary one, with a switch flipped at the very first Little Sister. A choice like that, where you make it without even having the full story, is barely a choice at all. It is ironic that a game so steeped in philosophy would be unable to recognize the moral grays. Despite its role playing elements, BioShock does not even give you the mental wiggle room to imagine character development.


BioShock has no character development. In other games you can infer development, through the ways that Master Chief is little more than a cardboard cut-out of a hero. It's not just FPSs either, just recently I picked up Crackdown, which is a lot of fun, but you often end up killing civilians with the only result being a temporary period where the police shoot you. Think about the untapped potential there for a development of the character, for taking what is a good game and turning it into an amazing one.


Of course, you can argue that the industry is free from the need to create a main character for their games. However, you'd be wrong. Video games provide a new form and format for storytelling, but this does not free them of the basic responsibilities involved in creating a narrative. Think back to the best games you've played, Commander Shepard, are what makes these games so good, and what gives them staying power. The impact of an effective character arc on a story is remarkable, and should be inspiring game developers to continue to create good characters, as that is what will make their games last.


While the in-game events of Half-Life are a technological marvel, their value for storytelling is lost. Think about how boring it would be to watch a movie where the character has no development, never changes, and you never see his face. Why do you think the DOOM movie was such a Battlestar Galactica, you're watching a show about people, fallible and human. Characterization and development are most important things storytelling in every other medium can have, but in games it seems as if developers feel that leaving the main character out gives you a better experience.


I disagree. Gamers deserve good narratives, and for that character is essential. This is where the future of gaming lies. While game provide all sorts of new ways to tell stories and a revolution in the way they can be structured and laid out, they still require the same things that make any good story. Characters with depth are essential, they need to have feelings and they need to make you feel something about them. They need to have value, otherwise what's the point?



Phifty, a.k.a Aram Zucker-Scharff, is the Fiction Lead for the Read, Write & View [http://affuniverse.com].

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

I don't even give silent protagonists that much credit. What they are is a crutch. Since the developers are nervous about isolating players because the character they love & adore might say the wrong thing (or be unlikable etc.) they just cheat. They make them have no character at all and the whole game's experience suffers as a result.

How realistic is it for all of these people to be total mutes? Even if it was just a dialog tree, it's better than nothing at all.

 

[Jacques 2]

At least he said something at some point, rather than nothing at all (yes, I'm glaring at you Gordon Freeman)

However in the case of Bioshock, it's not quite the same case. Because no one in the game cares what the character wants, they don't care to listen, however the player can emote and that's what I did. I felt shocked at the revelation, betrayed afterwards, and I had a drive before that to avenge Atlas' family. Perhaps I'm just rather sensitive, but I think that was the point. I would have liked to have been able to say something in game, anything really, even just have a neutral character to have a conversation with. However, that simply wasn't an option, and while I regret that, I do believe that Jack (as labeled on the present) did have character development, through the player.

Gordon Freeman on the other hand is a mute, with no reflection, which has simply become a long running gag. I'm glad they were forced to give some sort of in game appearance to Portal's character (I can't remember her name).

Prey on the other-hand shows what a little too much player character chattiness can do. Dodgy voice acting didn't help.

 

[wilsonscrazybed]

I'm confused, is this an advertisement for your website?

 

[FoxDiamond]

I agree with SwiftVengeance that non-developed main characters are there so the player can fill in that role nicely. Obviously some dialogue (where you have control mind you; I hate it when my character just says something I have no control over, but that's just me) can make things more interesting, but in all honesty actions do in fact speak louder than words, so if the game is going to let you have choice, a silent protagonist can fit in fine anyway. In the end, I'd personally rather play a non-character than play a character who's development is out of my control. Otherwise I feel too much like a puppeteer rather than a participant.

Okay, and I have a soft spot for silent protagonists, I guess. Sue me =p

However, aside from that, I think Phifty makes some good points. I haven't played BioShock, so I can't really comment on the other static characters, but I will agree that outside of a main character, other characters in games should develop and change. I also agree about the whole "good vs. evil" fad in so many games these days, that's really just a lie. They always talk about complex moral issues, but it always comes out the same: a choice between good (Being principled, in most games) and being evil (disguised as "doing whatever it takes to survive", but really just evil). And it really, really frustrates me that in BioShock, apparently, it's all determined by the first "little sister".

I was going to make a point that the revelation you had, Phifty, was supposed to happen to you -- since you were really intended to be the "character" experiencing the whole thing. I thought it was pretty impressive that they managed to make that occur. But given how simplistically they divide the good vs. evil thing, it's just a joke. I guess the problem is people view games as something to do to relax and have fun. That's good and all (no one wants games to be work, so far as I know), but I think it is taken too far. Games have incredible potential as serious art. It's not a passive thing, like someone looking at a picture -- it's a world that's created for the player to explore and experiment in. That said, it would have to be done carefully to explore serious moral issues, otherwise it may become too "preachy" (The only way to win is to do what the developers saw as the "best" option in a game of moral grays). Perhaps that's another reason it's avoided; everyone takes their own morals very seriously. But now I'm really rambling.

 

[000Ronald]

Sure, you could have some complex moral system and well developed charachters and thirty different endigs-but wouldn't that take away from the gameplay? I want a game to be fun, first and foremost, and if it isn't I won't play it. I liked Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance because it really went in depth with the main charecters (and sometimes the side ones) but disliked how little a role some of my favorite charechters were given. I really liked Zihark; It upset me that he wasn't even mentioned after you kill the Ravens. But the game was fun. Crap, I ranted. Sorry.

To anyone offended that I only have a Gamecube; I apologize. My family's cheap, but we live with what we got.

 

[Grampy_bone]

I agree, silent protagonists suck. Any personality is better than no personality.

 

[Gigantor]

It doesn't strike me as particularly sporting to drop a blog post here once in a while, stick a link to your blog at the end and never look back. I suspect one of the reasons there's no sigs on this forum is that the nice ladies and gentlemen running it want people to advertise in their own webspace in their own time.

 

[sun_and_earth]

This odd resistance towards character development is built into the game at every level. For example, when I started off the game, I killed the Little Sisters. Persuaded by Atlas and the fact that they looked more like little demons then little girls, I heartlessly decided to harvest them. Admit it, if you were faced by beings with glowing eyes, horrifyingly creepy voices, and a thirst for the blood of dead bodies, you'd think they were evil too. Hell, as far as I'm concerned that's one step away from zombie-ville. As the plot progressed and I learned more about Rapture, ADAM and the Little Sisters themselves, I came to realize my mistake. These were little girls after all, they had been altered and their lives destroyed, but I had the power to save them.

You realize what happened there? YOU realized what you did wrong. YOU changed your mind as a result of what you learned over the course of the game. That's something I've never seen a game do before. By removing the personality of the protagonist, you tend to place yourself as the main character. So instead of the character developing, YOU develop.

 

[Man_In_Gauze]

Gordon Freeman is supposed to be a player-insert, hence the generic name. Half-Life is probably the only game that can get away with this (full-body awareness would go a long, long way to helping, though), because of its cutsceneless nature. You were happy with your character until the end cutscene showed him doing something you wouldn't do. In Half-Life, the only things Gordon does are the things that you make him do. This is nice, because when the citizens of City 17 praise him, they're basically praising you, which is never a bad thing

 

[Minky_man]

This thread seems to have turned into Gordon Freeman describing, so I'm going to go with DMC....Again

Now I didn't really like the character in #1 far too much cliches and although he was cool (to an extent) anyone could have filled the role. #2 got rid of all the cliche but then left a hollow husk, which is why everyone hated him. #3 got it right but again, having a character be cocky to the enemies, is rather easy. haven't played #4 (But I hear its not worthwhile)

Development wise, Dante really doesn't go thru any. Take DMC 1, a woman trashes his place and impales him, he gets up, hey hey, then later on, he gets impaled AGAIN but nothing seems to bother him, he's not careful, he doesn't welcome it to show off, he doesn't really change at all. The only time you really see anything remotely development is when he saves Trish then has a go at her. But then he's still the same even after that.
Now I'm not expected huge amounts of development here but if I were impaled and could live, I'd rush into combat, be overly reckless, Devil-may-care if you will, I wouldn't step back 3 paces every time a boss showed up. In fact no matter what the boss is, I'd be scaring them.

 

[Neflame]

Like many others have already said, the lack of character development in Bioshock can be attributed to the fact that YOU are meant to be the character. Hence the lack of a name and lack of facial revelation. Even if this was not the case, the man's stoicism can be blamed on the pshychological programming done on him as at a young age. He may very well have been conditioned to feel impassive when a nut-job leaps from the shadows swinging a pipe into his face.

All-in-all, the main point is that if the main character has no real name and his face is never shown, what is the point of him talking since there is clearly not meant to be any real character development throughout the game aside from the whole "revalation of who and what he is" bit.

 

[UncleAsriel]

Interesting perspective, which I do appreciate hearing.


As a half-life fan, I can see how the voicelessness can get on one's nerves if the interaction with NPCs isn't handled right. Fortunately, both Half Life and Bioshock allow for smooth transitions between the combat/puzzle sections and the scripted sequences, allowing one to flow with the story provides one doesn't do something particularly out of character (such as whack old friend Eli Vance with the crowbar for giggles).

Half Life 2 worked for me particularly because of how the game allowed me to watch other characters' relationships evolve over time, from the silly bickering between Dr Kleiner and r Magnusson to the tender father-daughter relationship of Eli and Alyx. I was witness to these characters' trails and traumas, effectively a truly objective observer of their lives when the game asked me to stop punting blunt objects into the transgenic skulls of Overwatch elites and smell the roses.

I side with SwiftVengence and Sun_and_Earth, given how the tabula rasa of the faceless, nameless dork allow one to more completely immerse oneself into the character's adventure and make it your own experience. While I agree with you on the ending of Bioshock (the manichean split between sweet protector or Sweeney Todd) was too jarring for so layered a game, the silent protagonist can work in a world that lacks a moral evaluation system and has an innate linearity to it. Bioshock didn't work for you because of how it the endings didn't accommodate the subtlety of your changing attitudes towards the little sisters. I'd imagine Half Life 2 would probably fail the same way if you had the choice between either killing or 'converting' Civil Protection officers in City 17, and were to radically different endings depending on those choices.


Lets just hope for Bioshock 2 they fathom out how to deal with these narrative glitches

 

[Programmed_For_Damage]

When you have those memory flashbacks of your parents on the farm in Bioshock there is a rather large dude standing in between them with his arms around them. This is about the closest you come to seeing who you are. Given that Jack's character is pretty much an artificial construct, which is torn down during the game, I can forgive the lack of lengthy exposition by the man. I would be in stunned into silence if I had the revelations he did. Also prior to that, as soon as Atlas first uttered those immortal words, Jack became his robotic, single-minded instrument of death.
The second time I played this through I was actually amazed at how some of the voice logs actually refer to you in some way. In a way they serve to colour in the parts of your character that your actions haven't already defined. I kind of see it the same way as if you had amnesia and you wake surrounded by your relatives. The only way you can gain insight on who you are is by listening to what they have to say, and even then they could be lying. You're so busy reacting to what you discover or are being told that you don't have time to process it.

The only thing that did bother me was the lack of explanation of the chain tattoo on the wrist. Is it something metaphoric that you are meant to figure out for yourself, was the part that explained this cut from the final build or were they simply banking on a sequel/prequel?

 

[AngryMan]

Both formats have merit, I think. The faceless, voiceless protagonist is a very valid technique for immersion - I especially enjoyed it in HL2, but F.E.A.R also did it well. When playing HL2, for example, I quite often find myself doing things like shaking or nodding my "head" and pantomiming the sort of motions I'd go through if it were me in the HEV suit, so there's definitely a greater sense that it's "you" who's involved in the game scenario.

Controlling an actual character is fun as well, though. I keep replaying the Deus Ex games for precisely that reason. And I especially like the fact that Mass Effect's Commander Shepard is only loosely under your control when it comes to what s/he says and how s/he expresses him/herself. That wheel only gives you the general outline of what's going to be said, not the entire thing, and that, for me, reinforced the sense that you were just steering a developed, intelligent character with their own preconceptions and opinions.

Where Bioshock fell flat was in trying to gently hybridize both techniques. Honestly, I reckon that it would have been better with a fixed, different ending that didn't involve the Little Sisters in any way. By presenting you a consequence of choice at the end of the game, it implies a measure of character development that has never previously been expressed.

 

[Neflame]

If anything, the chains are a metaphor for the mental conditioning that allows Atlas/Fontaine to controll you.

 

[stompy]

Before I start, Neflame, I believe the chains on Jack's wrists symbolise his being a slave:

Jack has those chain tattoos because he's practically Fointain's slave, with all that "Would you kindly..." business. This comes into highlight through Andrew Ryan's death, where he pretty much reveals Jack's inability to act on his own accord, through his continual ordering of Jack, and then enforced through the quote "A man chooses, a slave obeys", with Ryan referring to you as a slave

Now, to the OP, whether he be bot or not. A silent protagonist is, in all truth, a door. He's a door into whatever world you enter. Through this protagonist, you are able to see, in this instance, the once glorious Rapture, fallen into disarray, with splicers driven insane with ADAM, the zombie Little Sisters, their massive Big Daddy protectors, and the power struggle between Ryan and Fontaine. This door allows you work your way through, experiencing whatever the game has in store for you, without a pesky, scaredy-cat jumping at the sight of splicers (Seriously, I can do that myself).

While an actual character, who've got very well done fleshed-out back stories, can be beneficial to the plot of some games, IMO, games like Bioshock, and even HL, would be done a disservice.

 

[Fire Daemon]

It would make little sense to have your character talking in bioshock. The thing about games is that they take you in the hot-seat and give you control. You are "whatizface" and because of the very differant people in the wide world of gaming you can not put in actions and dialoge and still have that.

FPS often have this more then RPG's because it is supposed to be you killing the aliens not Mr Big Balls doing all the work. Besides if there was talking by the main character in Bioshock then people would complain that it ruins the atmosphere of the game or that it dosn't make sense.

 

[Piorn]

I agree,the binary ending was somehow not really satisfying.
Especially because the little sisters had hardly any impact on the gameplay,besides a very little bit more adam or the feeling of doing something good. I would have liked it better if there had been more difference between the two,something that makes you think more about it.

And about the lack of developement regarding Jack, you could say that he had no chance to develope because of the mind control,but that would seem like a weak excuse.

But,in fact,I did not buy Bioshock to discover the "birthplace" of the protagonist in the first place,assuming he was a random survivor of a plane crash. I bought it because I wanted to discover the secrets of the creepy Underwater-City Rapture. The most important developement in the story is ,in my opinion, the rise and fall of Rapture and the way YOU think about this city.