So which do you prefer, "his/her story" or "your story"?

T

Tabris

Member
For video game storytelling, which do you prefer...

1) The stories that are modeled so that you are meant to feel like you're the main character. Traits for these games are the character usually doesn't say anything, you're allowed to name the character or just generally a kind of "empty-vase" character. Example games: Zelda, Knights of the Old Republic, etc.

2) ...or do you prefer it where you're playing the character's story? He has his own motivations, emotions, and input. You're just playing "his/her story". Example games: Post-NES Final Fantasies (FFIV onward)

3) ...and for all you haters out there, a third option, no story.
 
Depends how well they're executed. I'm much more fanatical of the "your story" in the sense of PC games, and I typically prefer the "their story" style on consoles.
 
I'd have to go for #2. I prefer good dialogue and an excellent pre-written experience rather than a half-baked one I have to build half of myself. That's the feeling I get from all of the "silent main character" games I've ever played. Definitely don't feel like I'm playing myself, just like I'm playing some stupid mute.
 
2, definitely. aku:jiki hit the nail on the head ... nowadays, "your story" just seems like you're playing as a dumb mute. Half-Life 2 had that problem ... all those characters and physics and world, and Gordon Freeman can't say "hello" back when people greet him? Took me right out of the game.
 
I have a problem with silent main characters. It doesn't make me identify more with the character in any way. Quite the opposite, actually. Mostly it comes across to me as stupidity.

So, I'll have choice number 2, please.
 
2, the majority of the time. 1 usually ends up meaning little to no story at all. At least for the main character. GTA III Guy? Link? I never feel like I am them. They are just blank generic video game characters.

KOTOR 1 and 2 are the best I can think of at doing 1 right. I actually feel like my characters are fully developed and part of the game.


And I hate it when a game makes you the main character but has like no customization at all. Like Fable. You can't even choose your appearance or sex. This is important. I want my character to look the way I want.
 
JackFrost2012 said:
and Gordon Freeman can't say "hello" back when people greet him?
Click to expand...
I agree. That can bother me too. Here I am, going into someone's unlocked house and robbing every drawer and every cupboard of money and healing items and "I" don't even have the decency to chit-chat about the weather with the resident? I'm such an ass... :(

Would definitely like to see how "your story" turns out when it's really well-done, though, as I don't think I've ever seen it. Anyone know any good ones?

Edit: Oh, KOTOR was kind of close. That's what I liked about what I little I played of it -- it really did give me a sense of me making my own adventure, at least to some extent.
 
Definitely 2. I've tried playing various PC rpgs that take route 1 but I just can't get into them, the character means nothing to me.

What I'd like to see more off is stuff like character customisation though. That's more likely to make me feel the characters is mine rather than having to define everything about the characters personality and morality myself.

And although Link in the Zelda games is mute I wouldn't class him as a type 1. There's lots done in terms of his body and facial animation that give a sense of character.
 
2 because I can't ever suspend my disbelief to the point where I truly feel like I am the character.
 
A mix of 1 and 2.

Deus Ex is the perfect example. You could play the way you wanted (more or less) but you still played a character with a voice, a look, a backstory, etc...

I'd still take 1 on it's own over 2. Nothing is more boring than simply following along as an observer and watching everything happen without having any influence.
 
If it's something like KOTOR and not Fable, then #1. If it's something like MGS and not Shadow Hearts: Covenant, then #2.
 
Redbeard said:
I'd still take 1 on it's own over 2. Nothing is more boring than simply following along as an observer and watching everything happen without having any influence.
Click to expand...

God, you must hate books and movies.

I'll take whatever, as long as I find it entertaining.
 
I prefer... both?

I like my games to be like Baldur's Gate where you are supposed to be the main character. Or at least I think of it that way. You mold your character in every aspect. You control the direction of the game. But underneath there is a very strong story that will be nearly identical for all that play it. But even though you are being guided through a pre-determined story, there are so many dialogue options that even though person X and person Y got to the same points they both feel they got there of their own decisions and personality.

A game's story should gently nudge and guide you toward all the main plot points but let the inbetween offer enough options that you feel you got there on your own terms.

I don't even know which of those numbers to file BG under... both?
 
I forgot I made this thread. (apparently I have a bad short term memory)

Mine is definitely number 2. In general, I can't stand number 1. There's occasional times where the story and other characters are so griping it makes you forget the main character is completly hollow.

In general though, if you take a game like I described above, and give the main character a personality, emotions and motives. The game would even more interesting to me.

Like I really wonder how much better games like Chrono Trigger (for example) would be if the main character wasn't a silent 1 dimensional character. I can almost guarantee I would have been enjoyed it more.

The one problem with number 2 for some people is you may get main characters you dislike, which turns them off from the game/story. This is a problem novels and movies face also, so I think it's a moot point.
 
I think most PC RPGs fit into the number 1 slot. Most console RPGs are usually about 1/3rd into the number 1 slot and 2/3rd's into the number 2 slot.
 
I prefer 3, because I prefer my games to be games and not interactive movies :D I can enjoy 1 and 2 too tho (although type 1 is much better than type 2).
 
# 2

Case in point,
Growlanser Generations

The story and characters are interesting
 
Gotta go with #2. Mainly because I just don't buy the BS about it being "my story." It's the developer's story and world. I'm just visiting.
 
I'm used to reading novels so I prefer number 2

But it's a tough decision because there are so many good games that are so exemplary of both choices..

1. KOTOR, KOTOR 2, Baldur's Gate, Chrono Cross, Chrono Trigger, Shin Megami Tensei: Noctune, Zelda (all of them)

2. FFIX, FFX, MGS3, Shadow Heart's: Covenant, etc
 
#1

It takes better advantage of what videogames can do, stronger self identification with the main character. Puts you more into the game and the game's story.

I only like option #2 when there is generally no real hero. Videogame companies generally suck at making heros. Just look at the cliched and boring heros Square has put out lately. A poor main character can bring down the whole thing. If you just have a good cast of characters that are balanced, and with no main character to weight things down you can overcome any lack in an individual character.

And for the last time, plot twists do not equal a good story! Also, challenging God does not equal good story either.

Videogame writing seems stuck on junior fiction type stuff and soap opera schtick. I like some junior fiction, but boy oh boy do they need to work on their main characters.
 
generally I prefer #1 but planescape: torment has the best mix of the 2 ever, and virtually 99% of japanese RPGs are horrible at telling stories.
 
The japanese just take the basic archetype, which many stories do(and I mean movies and books) but doesn't add much to it or put a new perspective on it. How many different types of heroes do Japanese companies have? Why must they be a guy with a sword? At least someone like Vivi in FF9 provided a side-hero to the more typical Zidane. The "trying to be human" isn't a new idea, but still a fresher take in the realm of videogames and I could at least understand the reasons for Vivi's personality and character. The lack of reason and the static feeling of most heroes in games is what makes me prefer the silent/abstract main character.

In general though, if you take a game like I described above, and give the main character a personality, emotions and motives. The game would even more interesting to me.

Like I really wonder how much better games like Chrono Trigger (for example) would be if the main character wasn't a silent 1 dimensional character. I can almost guarantee I would have been enjoyed it more.
Click to expand...

But they need better personalities! And for fucks sake, if they are changing the world around them in a true romantic sense how come they are often such static characters? At least if you're going to be static, be fun and positive if you are a hero. You saved the world and you're still a pissant?

And as I said, explain why they are such. What is the reason for who they are?
 
firex said:
generally I prefer #1 but planescape: torment has the best mix of the 2 ever, and virtually 99% of japanese RPGs are horrible at telling stories.
Click to expand...

I prefer #2. Planescape is the game that best utilizes #1, but that's just because the whole amnesia thing lends itself to that method of story telling. Both the player and the Nameless One don't know what's going on in the world around them so it all works out well as you progress through the game.
 
planescape is very much a #2 game, it just is presented in the style of a #1 story with enough flexibility for you to make an impact on the nameless one as a character by changing his alignment and joining factions.

fallout 1/2 are more in line with what I think of as a #1 story, because pretty much every single thing about your character is left up to you.
 
firex said:
planescape is very much a #2 game, it just is presented in the style of a #1 story with enough flexibility for you to make an impact on the nameless one as a character by changing his alignment and joining factions.
Click to expand...

Now that you mention it, you're right, it is more of a #2 game.
 
But they need better personalities! And for fucks sake, if they are changing the world around them in a true romantic sense how come they are often such static characters? At least if you're going to be static, be fun and positive if you are a hero. You saved the world and you're still a pissant?
Click to expand...

I actually find that the "fun and positive" heroes are usually the static and superficial characters in japanese RPGs.

Let's take Squall. This is the greatest example of the anti-"fun and positive" main character. Yet compare him to someone like Vyse, who is probably the greatest example of a "fun and positive" character. Squall is leagues ahead of him in terms of both character dynamic and depth of personality/emotions/motivations. (this is game to game comparison)

You take other mediums like movies and literature, and characters are judged by their dynamics and depth. How they deal with their relationships and in general, their dealing with "the human condition".

Yet for some reason, in the video game medium, a lot of players don't want characters that deal with anything like that. They want characters that save the girl, save the world then sing a happy tune while doing it. They dislike characters that instead are caught up in the things that make movie and literature characters so compelling.

A good recent example would be Tidus. Here you have a take on the "fun and positive" character, which was infact a front for deep-seeded trust issues due to his relationship with his father. Yet people absolutely hated that.

You take Squall. Here you have a character that legimately grows through out the entire story. (dynamic) He showed a "hedgehog dilenma" like personality (depth) at first before slowly growing out of it; due to a girl he grew to love (relationships). While dealing with issues about being abandoned as a child, issues about his sister, guilt and insecurities (human condition). Yet people absolutely hated that.

I say you get what you deserve. You don't want characters that deal with anything on a human level, yet complain that characters are too static in video games.

Luckily not all developers listen to some of their fans requests. Slowly it's changing. I would say the first game that really showed some character depth was FFVI. Then FFVII spurred it's course, and now it's definitely on the right track as long as developers keep ignoring people like you.
 
What I always thought was really cool about Zelda is that you could always name the character, but that somehow Link never lost his identetiy as a consistent character in the games. He was both maeleable and steady.
 
slayn said:
I prefer... both?

I like my games to be like Baldur's Gate where you are supposed to be the main character. Or at least I think of it that way. You mold your character in every aspect. You control the direction of the game. But underneath there is a very strong story that will be nearly identical for all that play it. But even though you are being guided through a pre-determined story, there are so many dialogue options that even though person X and person Y got to the same points they both feel they got there of their own decisions and personality.

A game's story should gently nudge and guide you toward all the main plot points but let the inbetween offer enough options that you feel you got there on your own terms.

I don't even know which of those numbers to file BG under... both?
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly

but either way, both can be very good. Majora's Mask being a prime example of #1 and Metal Gear Solid being a prime example of #2.

You can't just pick one without having exceptions.
 
I prefer a good story.

First person or third person makes no difference to me, I feel like a spectator no matter what.
 
#2, for most of the reasons already stated, plus the fact that I'm not really interested in playing a game about "me." I'm boring! I want to hear about someone else's story! And whatever I do with my life, it won't be fighting terrorists or adventuring in monster-filled caves, so I don't really buy the line that "this nameless hero represents YOU." I'd rather go with a character who DOES fit into that scenario (fighting terrorists, etc.)

That said, I think there can still be plenty of opportunities in #2 to give the player SOME control over what happens to the protagonist(s) and how the story turns out. For example, in MGS1
you can have Snake give up when he's being tortured and let Meryl die, or hold out and save Meryl. The player's actions DO affect the outcome of the story, but it's still "Snake's story." Both outcomes are plausible conclusions to the story, so the player can mold the story a BIT without taking away from the characterization.
 
I say you get what you deserve. You don't want characters that deal with anything on a human level, yet complain that characters are too static in video games.
Click to expand...

No, I don't want robots and Squall felt like a robot.
 
Tabris said:
You take other mediums like movies and literature, and characters are judged by their dynamics and depth. How they deal with their relationships and in general, their dealing with "the human condition".

Yet for some reason, in the video game medium, a lot of players don't want characters that deal with anything like that. They want characters that save the girl, save the world then sing a happy tune while doing it. They dislike characters that instead are caught up in the things that make movie and literature characters so compelling.
Click to expand...

No, what they want are lead characters that have issues, but deal with them without being assholes. The reason I detested Squall was not because he had personal problems, but because the way he handled them made him extremely unlikable. You can be conflicted or insecure without abusing the people around you. And unlike more passive media, games--RPG's in particular--expect you to invest time and effort guiding and nurturing the characters onscreen. Why the hell would I want to spend hours helping some character grow and mature, when I can't stand him in the first place? So that after 40 hours of contrived, fast-forward character development, he becomes someone who doesn't turn my stomach, just in time for the credits to roll? Sorry, that's not my idea of a good time.

Some people give me the distinct impression that their liking for characters in a particular RPG is a very dry, clinical thing, based on the complexity of their internal conflicts and psychological states. I tend to be a lot more visceral about it--no matter how complex and well-realized your hero is, if he's an obnoxious asshole, I'm not going to like him, any more than I would if I ran into the same guy in real life. As for Vyse, most of the conflicts in Skies were external rather than internal ones, and Vyse's straightforward, positive attitude--resolute without being grim, optimistic, uncrippled by self-doubt--worked to deliver an entertaining adventure in the context of the world and story.

Tabris said:
A good recent example would be Tidus. Here you have a take on the "fun and positive" character, which was infact a front for deep-seeded trust issues due to his relationship with his father. Yet people absolutely hated that.
Click to expand...

The biggest recurring complaint I've heard about Tidus is that he's 'whiny', and/or not 'gritty' enough. Nobody seems to have a problem with the character's trust issues. I don't think I entirely agree with your interpretation of his personality, either--yes, Tidus had some deep-seated (seated, not seeded) issues with his father, but I'd say that he was a genuinely optimistic, positive guy who was doing his best not to let the painful events of his past dominate his life. It's that aspect of his character that made him infinitely more appealing to me than Squall.

Tabris said:
You take Squall. Here you have a character that legimately grows through out the entire story. (dynamic) He showed a "hedgehog dilenma" like personality (depth) at first before slowly growing out of it; due to a girl he grew to love (relationships). While dealing with issues about being abandoned as a child, issues about his sister, guilt and insecurities (human condition). Yet people absolutely hated that.
Click to expand...

Again, what I hated wasn't the fact that the character had personal demons, or watching his journey to overcome them. It was the fact that I found the character in question so damn unlikeable that not once did he kindle the necessary spark of compassion that would've made me want to help him on his journey. I wanted nothing to do with this jackass, yet the game was built around me helping him survive his little journey of self-discovery.

Tabris said:
I say you get what you deserve. You don't want characters that deal with anything on a human level, yet complain that characters are too static in video games.

Luckily not all developers listen to some of their fans requests. Slowly it's changing. I would say the first game that really showed some character depth was FFVI. Then FFVII spurred it's course, and now it's definitely on the right track as long as developers keep ignoring people like you.
Click to expand...

My biggest problem with this is that people insist on holding up Cloud and Squall as poster children for character depth in RPG's. 'Depth' and 'internal conflict' don't have to mean 'dark' or 'antisocial', but all too often people insisting on deeper characterization in RPG's act like the two go hand in hand. Give me deep, flawed, but likable characters and I'll be happy.
 
Tellaerin said:
Give me deep, flawed, but likable characters and I'll be happy.
Click to expand...

Squall's likable! :(

Cloud isn't what I'd call again a likable character, but calling any of the paper cutouts in FF VII a "character" is probably too generous to begin with...
 
Squall at the start: ".......................do I have to do this job?"
Squall at the end: "........................ok I did my job."
 
#2 most of the time because #1 usually doesn't sate me enough with the decisions and outcomes that are possible. I want decisions to make for my character that really affect the world and the relationships the character can forge. It's simply not just about the adventure for me for #1.
 
Both style are good. It really comes down to the quality of the writing. (The fact that any game with really good writing tends to have really good voice acting as well doesn't hurt at all).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Poll
Fighting games, or Hero Shooters, which do you prefer?
Analysis 
25
1K
Danjin44 replied
Borderlands 4 Story trailer
43
403
The Cockatrice replied
How do you see the story going with GTA 6?
46
1K
GymWolf replied
What is Your General Thoughts About Story Downloadable Contents (DLC) In Singleplayer Games
17
309
Magic Carpet replied
Vagrant Story 25th Anniversary
Retro  2 3
110
1K
Miyazaki’s Slave replied
Top Bottom