MovieBob said:
Combat Evolved?
This week MovieBob rants about Halo.
Watch Video
The unfortunate side effects of form following function, as well as "accidental storytelling."
FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION
In video games, particularly those that surround primarily a single protagonist, the villains are far more interesting and diverse. While, in this case, it can confuse the "message" of the narrative, I think the actual reasons are simpler:
1) If you play the single protagonist, you spend most of the game
not seeing yourself, so there's no real emphasis on making you visually striking. Particularly in a first-person game.
2) Villains must be visually very diverse so that players can, from a casual glance, tell the difference
and gauge the associated strengths and weaknesses based on established tropes in the genre. (Little guys are weak, but numerous. Big guys with swords are stronger and more durable. Red guys use fire, or whatever.)
3) As most of the weapons you'll use are collected from enemies, it will always be the case that the enemies have far more variety in terms of armament, while the guys on "your side" will be using same-y default stuff most of the time.
4) Aiming for the lower end of the middle of the population, you want to ensure that your players can readily relate to the tools they'll be using. That means things will generally look like items we're already familiar with, so we can approximately guess that this gun functions as a pistol, while this one functions as a sniper rifle. Far more liberties can be taken with
alien technology, which usually means
enemy technology (since people usually prefer to play people).
ACCIDENTAL STORYTELLING
I think that explains the dichotomy of the "homogeneous good guys" against "heterogeneous bad guys." As far as bad or bland characterization, that usually owes to it all being an afterthought. Programmers create games. Your mechanic doesn't usually
also do paint jobs and sound systems, because he's wrapped up in all of the nuts-and-bolts aspects of the vehicle. Stories are tacked on to the game mechanics.
That's not to say they create the math and
then pick characters. It's just that choosing a
setting is not the same as crafting a
story. The story usually has to be applied to the setting afterward... and this usually involves subconsciously referencing tried-and-true formulas from stories we've encountered in the past.
And, as you've discovered, when you're not
fully aware of the implications of your narrative, you can "accidentally" create a whole lot of subtext--much of it not favorable. It's hard to
intentionally create good subtext, so it's exponentially more difficult for any good subtext to
accidentally find its way into the story.
The less intentionality there is behind the narrative (and, by extension, the characterization), the more likely it is that things will revolve around old tropes, which in turn often play dangerously close to old stereotypes. Using old stereotypes rarely results in creating something profound, especially if it's unintentional.
The best stories are those written by folks who are
fully aware of the expectations, biases, stereotypes, and other emotional elements the story will be accessing in the reader (or viewer, or player). Not just on the surface level, but well underneath, even recognizing that half the audience may never be
aware of some of these elements. The folks writing this story (Halo, as a whole) are just strumming a few of the standard emotional chords, realizing most of their target audience are not looking for an epic chock full of symbolism.
It's unfortunate when companies expect so little from their audiences. It shows lazy development (in the story department), a mild condescension toward the player, and an unwillingness to fully engage the medium in all its dimensions.
