Jwalsh, I do understand and agree that there is a difference between watching a hero and playing the hero. However, I still don't think it unreasonable that the player would continue to play a game through to the end when all the player character's close ties are cut.
There is still the one relationship that remains intact no matter what happens, and that is the relationship between the player character and the player. If the bond between the player and their character is as strong as it should be, we as the player should want to see the character through to the end.
Deaths of main characters
Quote:Original post by JWalsh
Psychologically speaking, if you eliminate everything a player has become attached to, he'll learn to distrust the game, believing that everything good will be in some way taken from him.
As a result, he's less likely to become attached to anything else, and may even go so far as to avoid playing the game, for fear of losing security. This is especially true if the player is unable to anticipate, or isn't told from the beginning that s/he's going to lose everything in the near or distant future.
...
Now..that's true. I think that's why I never finished FF7
I think a lot of it matters in how the character is killed.
In FF7, Aeris is murdered. Plain and simple with no chance to fight back murdered. This also occurs after enough time to become attached to her in the game which leads to anger, complete disrespect for the antagonist and the desire for revenge regardless of the cost.
Similar to this is in Jade Empire where the Fox Spirit kills the traveler from the inn and then tries to kill you. I was ready to fry that spirit until I found out that all the people at the inn were actually undead creatures and the attack on my player was an accident.
On the other hand, death can occur due to voluntary combat. If an enemy challenges one of your allies and defeats them there is still the desire for revenge but there is no loss and perhaps even gain of respect for the enemy which can have different effects.
A third type of death is self sacrifice. In Jade Empire one of the main characters (Can't remember the name) sacrifices themselves so that you will not have to face Death's Hand before you are ready. For me at least this didn't lead to anger against Death's Hand so much as determination to complete the true mission which might not actually include killing Death's Hand.
Death of a main character is no different from any other story telling element. Anything that is part of the story must be there for a purpose and carefully thought out.
If Aeris' death had not been so carefully woven into the story it would have been meaningless. Aeris was the truly innocent seeming character in the whole story, enough time was taken to build a bond with her, it was very carefully pointed out that the death was witnessed by Cloud and it was conveyed that for all his strength Cloud was helpless to prevent the death and at the last moment a last connection was made between Cloud and Aeris before her death.
Because of the connection built up and because it was shown how important the mission was to Aeris, revenge became important but so did making her death meaningful.
Pardon the somewhat ramble, in writing this my ideas expanded somewhat so this is not very well organized.
In FF7, Aeris is murdered. Plain and simple with no chance to fight back murdered. This also occurs after enough time to become attached to her in the game which leads to anger, complete disrespect for the antagonist and the desire for revenge regardless of the cost.
Similar to this is in Jade Empire where the Fox Spirit kills the traveler from the inn and then tries to kill you. I was ready to fry that spirit until I found out that all the people at the inn were actually undead creatures and the attack on my player was an accident.
On the other hand, death can occur due to voluntary combat. If an enemy challenges one of your allies and defeats them there is still the desire for revenge but there is no loss and perhaps even gain of respect for the enemy which can have different effects.
A third type of death is self sacrifice. In Jade Empire one of the main characters (Can't remember the name) sacrifices themselves so that you will not have to face Death's Hand before you are ready. For me at least this didn't lead to anger against Death's Hand so much as determination to complete the true mission which might not actually include killing Death's Hand.
Death of a main character is no different from any other story telling element. Anything that is part of the story must be there for a purpose and carefully thought out.
If Aeris' death had not been so carefully woven into the story it would have been meaningless. Aeris was the truly innocent seeming character in the whole story, enough time was taken to build a bond with her, it was very carefully pointed out that the death was witnessed by Cloud and it was conveyed that for all his strength Cloud was helpless to prevent the death and at the last moment a last connection was made between Cloud and Aeris before her death.
Because of the connection built up and because it was shown how important the mission was to Aeris, revenge became important but so did making her death meaningful.
Pardon the somewhat ramble, in writing this my ideas expanded somewhat so this is not very well organized.
Quote:Original post by Drethon
Death of a main character is no different from any other story telling element.
It can be, if you've just spent the last 20 hours trying to level that character up. Hence the reality that we are playing a game, not telling a story.
Quote:Original post by KestQuote:Original post by Drethon
Death of a main character is no different from any other story telling element.
It can be, if you've just spent the last 20 hours trying to level that character up. Hence the reality that we are playing a game, not telling a story.
I say it is not different from any other story telling element because part of the story telling or part of the game play can be that you just spent 20 hours leveling up a weapon skill, only to find that the next "boss" you need to attack is only vulnerable to a weapon skill you have not trained.
I have a hard time seeing death of a main character used well in any place but a story telling element so can only be used if the game is telling a story and only if done in a proper manner.
Edit: Just to clarify, I'm not trying to argue your perspective, I'm just trying to clarify mine as a game player who will usually only play building or racing sims if the game doesn't have a story.
Quote:Original post by DrethonQuote:Original post by KestQuote:Original post by Drethon
Death of a main character is no different from any other story telling element.
It can be, if you've just spent the last 20 hours trying to level that character up. Hence the reality that we are playing a game, not telling a story.
I say it is not different from any other story telling element because part of the story telling or part of the game play can be that you just spent 20 hours leveling up a weapon skill, only to find that the next "boss" you need to attack is only vulnerable to a weapon skill you have not trained.
Huh? How does that even relate to my statement?
To clarify my statement: You're taking things away from the player that the player has invested time in. In your own weapon skills example, that hasn't happened. In addition, your example would not make any decent story impact. Also add that it's a totally bad game design to employ bosses that are only vulnerable to a specific weapon (in a game where weapon skills are improved over time), unless you've given the player a very early warning about it.
Quote:I have a hard time seeing death of a main character used well in any place but a story telling element so can only be used if the game is telling a story and only if done in a proper manner.
One problem is that when the player has been given the capacity to change events, it's difficult for them to accept that this one event, regardless of its negative impact, is unchangeable because the designer says so.
Quote:Original post by KestQuote:Original post by DrethonQuote:Original post by KestQuote:Original post by Drethon
Death of a main character is no different from any other story telling element.
It can be, if you've just spent the last 20 hours trying to level that character up. Hence the reality that we are playing a game, not telling a story.
I say it is not different from any other story telling element because part of the story telling or part of the game play can be that you just spent 20 hours leveling up a weapon skill, only to find that the next "boss" you need to attack is only vulnerable to a weapon skill you have not trained.
Huh? How does that even relate to my statement?
To clarify my statement: You're taking things away from the player that the player has invested time in. In your own weapon skills example, that hasn't happened. In addition, your example would not make any decent story impact. Also add that it's a totally bad game design to employ bosses that are only vulnerable to a specific weapon (in a game where weapon skills are improved over time), unless you've given the player a very early warning about it.Quote:I have a hard time seeing death of a main character used well in any place but a story telling element so can only be used if the game is telling a story and only if done in a proper manner.
One problem is that when the player has been given the capacity to change events, it's difficult for them to accept that this one event, regardless of its negative impact, is unchangeable because the designer says so.
Rereading my statement, I wasn't very clear myself. What I was providing is an example of other bad approaches to storytelling or game design that I've run across. Yes the player looses when a main character dies but I've seen other paths where improper design/storytelling leads to bad losses.
When I state that I feel the death of the main character should be used properly when storytelling I left unstated that such a loss needs to be a benefit in some other manner. Such benefit can simply be a powerful addition to the story in a game with a well written story. Another benefit can be that the death of one character leads to the discovery of a new, equally powerful character.
I'm of the type who is more than willing to see my work sacrificed if it leads to a good turn in the storyline. A designer does have to understand that not all gamers will feel this way and carefully balance the design. I could see a main character's death leading down a different path in the storyline that may be avoided should the player choose to avoid this, an approach you seem to be alluding to.
Edit: Ultimately I do have to question the feasibility of designing a game that pleases all types of gamers. It would be nice to find a way to implement a game that would please everyone but at the very least I don't think most game companies want to spend the money on the research that would be necessary. Because of this we end up with some games for people who the designer to tell the story for them and other games for people who want to write the story themselves (speaking only within storyline/rpg games of course). There are usually markets for all types.
[Edited by - Drethon on September 18, 2007 3:42:15 PM]
Quote:Original post by DrethonQuote:Original post by KestQuote:Original post by DrethonQuote:Original post by KestQuote:Original post by Drethon
Death of a main character is no different from any other story telling element.
It can be, if you've just spent the last 20 hours trying to level that character up. Hence the reality that we are playing a game, not telling a story.
I say it is not different from any other story telling element because part of the story telling or part of the game play can be that you just spent 20 hours leveling up a weapon skill, only to find that the next "boss" you need to attack is only vulnerable to a weapon skill you have not trained.
Huh? How does that even relate to my statement?
To clarify my statement: You're taking things away from the player that the player has invested time in. In your own weapon skills example, that hasn't happened. In addition, your example would not make any decent story impact. Also add that it's a totally bad game design to employ bosses that are only vulnerable to a specific weapon (in a game where weapon skills are improved over time), unless you've given the player a very early warning about it.
Rereading my statement, I wasn't very clear myself. What I was providing is an example of other bad approaches to storytelling or game design that I've run across. Yes the player looses when a main character dies but I've seen other paths where improper design/storytelling leads to bad losses.
There are a few. But your original statement was that main character death was just like any other story telling element. Nearly all story telling elements push the player forward without making previous time spent completely irrelevant.
The OP used Aeris as an example. I assume everyone that played Final Fantasy VII suffered in this way, in addition to any possible emotional distress. The emotion is great for a story, but slapping around the player's previous efforts is very bad for a game. So in this case, main character death is different from most story telling elements, because it is a game.
I'd like to go back the the example of Mad Max's family, and the idea of a hero's world being shattered, leaving him to pick up the pieces and soldier on.
If I got to the last level of a Zelda game and all my gear got taken away, so I had to start over with a wooden sword and no boomerang, I'd be awfully disheartened by the loss. However, I would trust the game to present me with challenges that I could overcome with that gear, and I would trust it to still be fun.
Depending on the game, taking away what the player has worked hard for can be either ruinous or inconsequential. For example, for those of us who never used Aeris and her crappy stick, it was almost a relief to get rid of her. The loss, in most cases, was the extra-curricular level grinding that people so often invest in. If you're speed-gaming to that point, you don't give two shits about the loss of the character, because your rewards for gameplay have been story, not stats. If you sat around killing weak mobs for ages, then all you have to show for your efforts is the little set of numbers next to the character's name, and having a whole put in your spreadsheet ends your day on a sour note.
So you can tell a good story with people dying in it, or you can punish the player for playing your game. They both use the same cutscene, but the gameplay on either side of it will decide the effect.
If I got to the last level of a Zelda game and all my gear got taken away, so I had to start over with a wooden sword and no boomerang, I'd be awfully disheartened by the loss. However, I would trust the game to present me with challenges that I could overcome with that gear, and I would trust it to still be fun.
Depending on the game, taking away what the player has worked hard for can be either ruinous or inconsequential. For example, for those of us who never used Aeris and her crappy stick, it was almost a relief to get rid of her. The loss, in most cases, was the extra-curricular level grinding that people so often invest in. If you're speed-gaming to that point, you don't give two shits about the loss of the character, because your rewards for gameplay have been story, not stats. If you sat around killing weak mobs for ages, then all you have to show for your efforts is the little set of numbers next to the character's name, and having a whole put in your spreadsheet ends your day on a sour note.
So you can tell a good story with people dying in it, or you can punish the player for playing your game. They both use the same cutscene, but the gameplay on either side of it will decide the effect.
Well, the only real problem is dependant on the played character's character, if your hero really isn't much of one then likely the story would fall apart at that point, and the hero would probably stop his quest. Now if it was a true 'hero' in the sense of the word, hell yes, he would be driven to avenge their deaths, to bring justice to those that wronged his loved ones.
Psychologically it is difficult for this hero to overcome, however, his loss would channel this inner energy to do what needs to be done, to grieve and to continue the path he is destined to in order to ensure their deaths were not in vain. A lot of games are based upon that but could easily be implemented even further.
As almost everyone said, FF7 follows your idea to the T. Although it could probably be driven even further if you were to say, kill off cloud instead and play the part of Barret, Tifa, or Aeris, in a way it was done for a short portion of the game. Did it make you want to take out Sephiroth even more? I know it did for me.
Once again the concept of a great story is really hard to pass up, people will be driven even more as long as there is a great story to go with it.
Psychologically it is difficult for this hero to overcome, however, his loss would channel this inner energy to do what needs to be done, to grieve and to continue the path he is destined to in order to ensure their deaths were not in vain. A lot of games are based upon that but could easily be implemented even further.
As almost everyone said, FF7 follows your idea to the T. Although it could probably be driven even further if you were to say, kill off cloud instead and play the part of Barret, Tifa, or Aeris, in a way it was done for a short portion of the game. Did it make you want to take out Sephiroth even more? I know it did for me.
Once again the concept of a great story is really hard to pass up, people will be driven even more as long as there is a great story to go with it.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
