THE DARK SHADOW OF GOOD

Recommended Videos

zorgonstealth

New member
Nov 18, 2009
24
0
0
This is a trend that?s been bothering me a lot recently when I go to the movies or play video games. This is about the representation of evil. Understand this; people are not evil. Of course there are people who do evil things, and while I, and most other people would call them evil, they themselves would rarely agree. Perhaps a better introduction would be people are not good or more accurately yet, people are neutral, and will do what they think is right for themselves 100% of the time, without exception.

The problem is that people have the ability to justify just about anything, any conceivable act of staggering cruelty you can imagine; and many you can?t. Every atrocity you hear about had someone on the other side who thought themselves completely in the right. The people who flew themselves into the world trade centre really believed that they were vessels of God; they were looking forward to spending eternity in the special garden of paradise reserved for martyrs, with friends and loved ones they had lost, for all time. In other words, they were human beings.

That?s just the way the world is, but while environment plays a crucial role in who you are, you ultimately make your own decisions in life, and evil must be punished. Most people have a good sense of right and wrong, there are natural morals built from your evolutionary heritage, most people don?t murder, or steal, or lie compulsively; from tribes living in the Amazon to rural Hertfordshire, people are generally good. It?s up to each of us to seek out good and reject evil, and decide which is which for ourselves. These are the aspirations we often see in movie heroes or when we jump into the protagonist of the latest action game.

It's only one side of the story, an adventurous tale of obvious good over obvious evil, with evil often depicted as a dark shadow that drifts in and out of the plot; evil for evil?s sake. Real life is never so black and white. People have motives, people have desires and fears, both the good and the bad, and understanding these things about the character yields a much better experience and emersion. If you understand why the protagonist is doing what she?s doing and more importantly, why the ?bad guy? is doing what they?re doing, then you feel the investment a lot more in what?s going on, and end up routing for whomever best fits your own moral test, which may not always be that of the traditional heroes we so often see.

By motives, I mean I want something more substantial than, ?bad guy wants to take over the world", though there are ways of doing that right and of doing it wrong. The Modern Warfare and Transformer series being examples of the disastrously wrong, Bioshock and Apocalypse Now, of the refreshingly right. Evil must be explained, or its presence is meaningless. Didn't you ever wonder what Sauron intended on doing after he?d destroyed all of Middle Earth, and is left with millions of dirty orcs? Or why Drake doesn?t retire on what he?s already made before he gets arrested for temple robbing and murder on the scale of a small genocide?

I don't mean to say that we shouldn't have armies of aliens at the disposal for much needed stress relief, but it's all about the context. Half the time in GOW or COD I have no idea wtf is going on, or why I should care. In portal, for example, I understood my motivations; trapped, confused and slighlty paraniod that thing's weren't adding up. I wanted to be free, and the portal gun was my means of escape; I wasn't just fucking around with some toy I'd found. I felt my character's thrill at getting behind the scenes of the facility and again when finally confronting the none so traditional "evil" in the satisfying conclusion. In GOW, you know it would just be another grey level, with the same base-layer amount of emotional attachment. What Yahtzee writes, about the difference between macho and manly, (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/extra-punctuation/9163-Manly-Vs-Macho-in-Gears), is a key part of this larger problem.


Less so with movies, but if games want to move into the realm of a respected media art-form (pretentious! Moi?) then it has to get more mature when it comes to representing evil in the narrative; yes it?s cheaper not to develop characters in a meaningful way, and yes it?s easier to feel hate towards the Locust Horde than it is towards a sympathetic villain, with motivations and reason, easier to churn out simple, white, American space marines than to develop a real-world complex character, with confliction and doubt... But this is lazy, and it is we the consumers who feed their lazyness when we don?t demand better story-telling in games, and thus a more accurate portrayal of the human soul.
 

Spacewolf

New member
May 21, 2008
1,232
0
0
Well for the LOTR one the writer was of the beleif that evil is a chaotic influence and people who do evil to do good eventually end up doing evil for evils sake, GOW i think was a fight for survival for the locust from what ive heard
 

zorgonstealth

New member
Nov 18, 2009
24
0
0
Well, evil is not a chaotic influence, it is the conscious decisions of individuals, not an absurd suit of armour atop a black tower; and you must do evils to do good in the real world, murdering Nazi's in WW2 was justified evil. As for GOW, it's all very well fighting for your life as motivation goes, but not when you find the protagaist so uninteresting that you don't care if he lives or dies.
 

maninahat

New member
Nov 8, 2007
4,397
0
0
I think it is a bit wordy. It can be summarised as:

* "No one errs willingly."
* Games need fewer "evil for the sake of evil" characters, and need antagonists with plausible reasons to be evil.

I slightly agree. But I think that there is a good reason why villains in films and movies tend to be presented as quintissentially evil: because the focus of those stories tends to be on the action or the adventure, whilst the villain is simply there for the purpose of providing an obstacle. The writer doesn't want to waste time discussing why a shallow, one dimensional dark lord is evil, the character is basically a device to get the plot going.

Saying that, most games do offer at least a brief justification for the villain's behaviour (though it is often a lazy, throw away line about "mad with power" or "revenge"). Also, in the case of things like Lord of the Rings, the villain tends to be temptation and seduction, which ultimately present the real obstacle, instead of a big eye atop a tower.
 

Manji187

New member
Jan 29, 2009
1,444
0
0
Black and white has always been the easiest thing to do. Games, a digital (and therefore binary) medium like to take this worn out road.

An "accurate portrayal of the human soul" is impossible with games, at least at the moment. Maybe a better approximation can be achieved with advanced AI and way more computing power?

Another way is deception/ manipulation; tricking the player into believing there is depth where there is actually none or very little. This is what happens if you manage to make the player project his or her own assumptions and feelings unto a character (for instance Samus Aran and Kratos).
 

Arbi Trax

New member
Jul 13, 2011
130
0
0
I get what you mean and I wholeheartedly agree. Like how in Planescape: Torment, a past incarnation of yourself callously commits innumerable affronts to human decency, just to further his own ends. So much so that some of it is actually painful to read. He is as selfish and heartless as a character can be. He is referred to as the 'Practical' incarnation.
 

zorgonstealth

New member
Nov 18, 2009
24
0
0
The problem isn't that games are a digital medium, there are plenty of films which are completely digitised, ("Up", "Shrek"), without story-telling getting in the way; the core problem is that games are interactive, and a carefully laid-out plot is all very well, but must be balanced against how much control you take away from the user; as we see in "Half-Life", it's difficult to get your character to act a certain way when the player, given the opertunity, will prefer to jump around on the furniture until the next room opens up. I don't think it's impossible, i just don't think the industry feels any need to change, MW3 making $400 million in 24hrs says it all. But the interactive element of games also has so much more potential for emersive story telling, which i don't think has really been tapped into since "Silent Hill 2". Give us control, but don't let us fuck around when there's shit we need to be paying attention to, get us involved; with the story and the decision making, and reasons for those decisions, but most importantly, give us a character worth controlling.
 
Jan 12, 2012
2,114
0
0
zorgonstealth said:
This is an edit of a post I made yesterday.
Why did you make this one? I can't see a major difference between it and the other one.
OT:
maninahat said:
I think that there is a good reason why villains in films and movies tend to be presented as quintissentially evil: because the focus of those stories tends to be on the action or the adventure, whilst the villain is simply there for the purpose of providing an obstacle. The writer doesn't want to waste time discussing why a shallow, one dimensional dark lord is evil, the character is basically a device to get the plot going.

Saying that, most games do offer at least a brief justification for the villain's behaviour (though it is often a lazy, throw away line about "mad with power" or "revenge"). Also, in the case of things like Lord of the Rings, the villain tends to be temptation and seduction, which ultimately present the real obstacle, instead of a big eye atop a tower.
I agree with Mr. Hat. While evil characters often have shallow motivations, they are usually a foil for the desires of the protagonists: The second path in the yellow wood, if you will. That's what makes the "Join the Dark Side" appeal so persuasive; it seems to offer an easier way for the hero to reach their goal(s).

As for what Sauron would do after taking over Middle Earth: He would probably turn on his subordinates. He wanted to have complete control, so he was working to crush those who opposed him, wanting to kill them or turn them into vessels for his will (like the Ringwraiths). Once they were gone, he would begin to try and destroy those underlings that wielded influence or power, until he was the only one left alive.