Alright, I've been playing RAGE, and as Id Software is my favorite developer, I was expecting something a little more... enjoyable. Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad game, it's just not very entertaining to play. I think I figured out why.
Id Software has never been too deep in the story department, and while you'd think that this would mean that the characters have no personality either, that's pretty far from the truth.
Let's take Ranger (the ugly looking guy from Quake 1) for an example. Now, Ranger is a silent protagonist, and yet he still has character. How is this so? The gameplay and the game itself displays the character. Throughout the course of Quake, there is absolutely nothing telling Ranger what he should be doing. However, he keeps going on and on through more disturbing and horrific circumstances, until he finally manages to defeat the evil that plagues his species. Simply by summarizing the course of events in the game, we see that Ranger is a strong willed, good hearted and brave protagonist. These characteristics are in no way unique, but they are portrayed simply through action.
Now, let's look at the protagonist of Rage.
Imagine a video game about chess. In this chess game, you played as a pawn. However, this pawn had the ability to make every move it needed to win the game. However, it was still a pawn. It never made any choices for itself, it simply followed orders no matter what. This pawn is essentially the protagonist of Rage. Sure, he can beat the Authority, but what does he gain from it? Why is it his problem? Why did he just stop everything and go get some flowers for an old guy to chew on? The main character doesn't make one single choice on his own free will during the game. He is just a pawn to be used by other to get what they want. The worst part? He doesn't even recognize this. In fact, he doesn't recognize anything. Once again, he is just a pawn, a faceless figure with no free will, nothing more.
Now, of these two characters, who do you think would be more fun to play as? I'd imagine you picked the first option, to which I say "Then why don't developers understand this?"
If I had a dime for every Space Marine/soldier/citizen who went through an entire game without making a single choice of their own, I could take all of those dimes and smelt them into a life size replica of the Eiffel Tower.
Of course, there's always that "Blank Slate" excuse, to which the answer "Why would I want to play a video game as myself?" springs to mind.
What do you think of characterization in games? Does it really add or subtract anything from the experience? If so what?
Id Software has never been too deep in the story department, and while you'd think that this would mean that the characters have no personality either, that's pretty far from the truth.
Let's take Ranger (the ugly looking guy from Quake 1) for an example. Now, Ranger is a silent protagonist, and yet he still has character. How is this so? The gameplay and the game itself displays the character. Throughout the course of Quake, there is absolutely nothing telling Ranger what he should be doing. However, he keeps going on and on through more disturbing and horrific circumstances, until he finally manages to defeat the evil that plagues his species. Simply by summarizing the course of events in the game, we see that Ranger is a strong willed, good hearted and brave protagonist. These characteristics are in no way unique, but they are portrayed simply through action.
Now, let's look at the protagonist of Rage.
Imagine a video game about chess. In this chess game, you played as a pawn. However, this pawn had the ability to make every move it needed to win the game. However, it was still a pawn. It never made any choices for itself, it simply followed orders no matter what. This pawn is essentially the protagonist of Rage. Sure, he can beat the Authority, but what does he gain from it? Why is it his problem? Why did he just stop everything and go get some flowers for an old guy to chew on? The main character doesn't make one single choice on his own free will during the game. He is just a pawn to be used by other to get what they want. The worst part? He doesn't even recognize this. In fact, he doesn't recognize anything. Once again, he is just a pawn, a faceless figure with no free will, nothing more.
Now, of these two characters, who do you think would be more fun to play as? I'd imagine you picked the first option, to which I say "Then why don't developers understand this?"
If I had a dime for every Space Marine/soldier/citizen who went through an entire game without making a single choice of their own, I could take all of those dimes and smelt them into a life size replica of the Eiffel Tower.
Of course, there's always that "Blank Slate" excuse, to which the answer "Why would I want to play a video game as myself?" springs to mind.
What do you think of characterization in games? Does it really add or subtract anything from the experience? If so what?
