The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
A funny thing happened to me on the way to the apocalypse. I was playing Bethesda's Fallout 4, when I realised Dogmeat, the canine companion you acquire quite early on in the game, wasn't following me. I heard frenzied barking and realising he must have been tangling with the local wildlife, I leapt to his aid. 'I'm coming, Dogmeat!', I yelled internally. At least, I hope was internally, otherwise I may never be able to face the neighbours again. It was at this point that a thought struck me, like a radioactive bolt from the blue. I actually cared more about Dogmeat, a virtual mutt, than my character's son, Shaun - the same son whose kidnapping was supposed to be the impetus for the whole game.
Things didn't improve from thereon in, as I continued to feel no emotional connection to a character I was apparently supposed to care about. Indeed, my only reason for tacking the game's main missions was to gain access to new weaponry, areas and companions. This was not, I suspect, Bethesda's intention. Yet Fallout 4 isn't the only game where I've encountered this phenomenon, nor am I the only person to have noticed it. The opening chapter of The Last of Us features the demise of one of the protagonist's family members, something that's he's understandably upset about. Yet when I was playing it, and got to the aforementioned scene, I didn't feel anything at all. However, I actually ended up caring about Ellie, the character who Joel, the protagonist, has to protect as the game progresses.
The problem arises when a game tells you that you should care about a particular character, yet because no actual relationship exists, you feel nothing but indifference. This was certainly the case for me and I find it takes me right out of the game when this occurs. Destructoid's Anthony Burch talked about the issue a good five years or so ago. He suggested that the solution to the problem was to have the protagonist meet a character during the course of the game, if you intend the player to bond with the NPC in question. I'm inclined to agree, as all the character's I've cared about in-game have been ones I've met during the course of the game itself. Ellie from The Last of Us, Alyx Vance from Half Life 2, Elizabeth from BioShock, and even Dogmeat himself. And yet, five years later, gamers are still being told what to feel.
So why did this problem ever occur in the first place? My belief is that it stems from the fact that games started off being nearly devoid of story. Even now many games are no more complex than your average Michael Bay film. I'd suggest that many writers come to the medium with the view that, in terms of narrative, games should take their cues from television shows or movies. But in a game, you are the protagonist, and take an active role in the game. A movie, on the other hand, has you in a very passive role, merely viewing the action on screen. Take The Last of Us - Joel is as clearly a defined character as you're likely to get in a video game and yet, when I was playing the game, I was Joel. I mentally inserted myself into the role, and felt it was my responsibility to look after Ellie.
What can games developers do to avoid this disconnect between player and storyline? Simple – foster relationships in–game, by introducing characters during the course of the game itself. Don't expect them to care about characters just because you tell them the character they're playing should. Instead, focus on having meaningful interactions – including dialogue - between the player and the non-player character you want them to get attached to. Just don't try and tell us what to feel.
(Also posted on my Destructoid blog)
Things didn't improve from thereon in, as I continued to feel no emotional connection to a character I was apparently supposed to care about. Indeed, my only reason for tacking the game's main missions was to gain access to new weaponry, areas and companions. This was not, I suspect, Bethesda's intention. Yet Fallout 4 isn't the only game where I've encountered this phenomenon, nor am I the only person to have noticed it. The opening chapter of The Last of Us features the demise of one of the protagonist's family members, something that's he's understandably upset about. Yet when I was playing it, and got to the aforementioned scene, I didn't feel anything at all. However, I actually ended up caring about Ellie, the character who Joel, the protagonist, has to protect as the game progresses.
The problem arises when a game tells you that you should care about a particular character, yet because no actual relationship exists, you feel nothing but indifference. This was certainly the case for me and I find it takes me right out of the game when this occurs. Destructoid's Anthony Burch talked about the issue a good five years or so ago. He suggested that the solution to the problem was to have the protagonist meet a character during the course of the game, if you intend the player to bond with the NPC in question. I'm inclined to agree, as all the character's I've cared about in-game have been ones I've met during the course of the game itself. Ellie from The Last of Us, Alyx Vance from Half Life 2, Elizabeth from BioShock, and even Dogmeat himself. And yet, five years later, gamers are still being told what to feel.
So why did this problem ever occur in the first place? My belief is that it stems from the fact that games started off being nearly devoid of story. Even now many games are no more complex than your average Michael Bay film. I'd suggest that many writers come to the medium with the view that, in terms of narrative, games should take their cues from television shows or movies. But in a game, you are the protagonist, and take an active role in the game. A movie, on the other hand, has you in a very passive role, merely viewing the action on screen. Take The Last of Us - Joel is as clearly a defined character as you're likely to get in a video game and yet, when I was playing the game, I was Joel. I mentally inserted myself into the role, and felt it was my responsibility to look after Ellie.
What can games developers do to avoid this disconnect between player and storyline? Simple – foster relationships in–game, by introducing characters during the course of the game itself. Don't expect them to care about characters just because you tell them the character they're playing should. Instead, focus on having meaningful interactions – including dialogue - between the player and the non-player character you want them to get attached to. Just don't try and tell us what to feel.
(Also posted on my Destructoid blog)
'Wolfenstein: The New Order, I guess ...' one option or the other? No big deal ... leads to 2 'slightly' different storylines ... tried and tested elsewhere ;¬)
dav2612 wrote:
It's taken me a minute to remember the decision in Wolfenstein but it has come flooding back to me now. I was patriotic in my decision if I remember rightly.
Regarding your best friend Nick. Well it seems he got upset with me. So upset in fact that he said he'd be doing the world a favour and started shooting at me. It seems to have come from a glitch where we got pounced on in Cabot House and the game decided to force me to send Nick away. He didn't like that and the next time I saw him he tried to bump me off. A bit of an extreme reaction I felt. He seemed to have got over it the next time we met but I will never forget.
He is a bit quirky, and I think that's why I like him (are you sure it was a glitch, or did you cap him a couple of times in the noggin?;-))...
I have yet to truly upset a companion to that point, but I did accidentally pound a bunch of Diamond City guards at one stage, and there was a fairly lengthy episode of my running away as they attacked with ever greater force.
Eventually, I managed to get away, and when I went back it was like they didn't recognise me! Probably for the best as Diamond City is quite central to the main plot...
It's taken me a minute to remember the decision in Wolfenstein but it has come flooding back to me now. I was patriotic in my decision if I remember rightly.
Regarding your best friend Nick. Well it seems he got upset with me. So upset in fact that he said he'd be doing the world a favour and started shooting at me. It seems to have come from a glitch where we got pounced on in Cabot House and the game decided to force me to send Nick away. He didn't like that and the next time I saw him he tried to bump me off. A bit of an extreme reaction I felt. He seemed to have got over it the next time we met but I will never forget.
He is a bit quirky, and I think that's why I like him (are you sure it was a glitch, or did you cap him a couple of times in the noggin?;-))...
I have yet to truly upset a companion to that point, but I did accidentally pound a bunch of Diamond City guards at one stage, and there was a fairly lengthy episode of my running away as they attacked with ever greater force.
Eventually, I managed to get away, and when I went back it was like they didn't recognise me! Probably for the best as Diamond City is quite central to the main plot...
It's taken me a minute to remember the decision in Wolfenstein but it has come flooding back to me now. I was patriotic in my decision if I remember rightly.
Regarding your best friend Nick. Well it seems he got upset with me. So upset in fact that he said he'd be doing the world a favour and started shooting at me. It seems to have come from a glitch where we got pounced on in Cabot House and the game decided to force me to send Nick away. He didn't like that and the next time I saw him he tried to bump me off. A bit of an extreme reaction I felt. He seemed to have got over it the next time we met but I will never forget.
Regarding your best friend Nick. Well it seems he got upset with me. So upset in fact that he said he'd be doing the world a favour and started shooting at me. It seems to have come from a glitch where we got pounced on in Cabot House and the game decided to force me to send Nick away. He didn't like that and the next time I saw him he tried to bump me off. A bit of an extreme reaction I felt. He seemed to have got over it the next time we met but I will never forget.
dav2612 wrote:
I think Fable 3 was the biggest offender of what you describe. I'm pretty sure I remember having to choose who would live between 2 people. It should have been a tough choice but I didn't know either so I didn't really care either way.
Oddly, Wolfenstein posed exactly that choice very early in the game. However, I found myself agonising over it the first time I played, despite only spending a short time with both affected parties.
But, then, Wolfenstein is a pretty fast-paced game and storyline, so maybe that added some "pressure" to the decision. I think I made much the same point previously, it's all about timing; a mere sliver of a story can be enough if the game is paced correctly.
Also, gaming is a much more personal experience than films are. Being "hands on" as it were, I think most people will get attached to different things, remember or appreciate various aspects, react to different stimuli.
I personally didn't care much for Dogmeat, for example. Nick (your friendly neighbourhood Synth Detective) on the other hand, I find highly entertaining and worth having around.
I think Fable 3 was the biggest offender of what you describe. I'm pretty sure I remember having to choose who would live between 2 people. It should have been a tough choice but I didn't know either so I didn't really care either way.
Oddly, Wolfenstein posed exactly that choice very early in the game. However, I found myself agonising over it the first time I played, despite only spending a short time with both affected parties.
But, then, Wolfenstein is a pretty fast-paced game and storyline, so maybe that added some "pressure" to the decision. I think I made much the same point previously, it's all about timing; a mere sliver of a story can be enough if the game is paced correctly.
Also, gaming is a much more personal experience than films are. Being "hands on" as it were, I think most people will get attached to different things, remember or appreciate various aspects, react to different stimuli.
I personally didn't care much for Dogmeat, for example. Nick (your friendly neighbourhood Synth Detective) on the other hand, I find highly entertaining and worth having around.
A valid point but I'm not sure what Fallout could do differently. You do spend a bit of time with baby Shaun but any more than that and most people would turn the game off.
If the game did give you that emotional attachment then you'd miss the vast majority of what is on offer. If you to save your child then there is no way you be off on errands for random strangers. And child or no child, why would you be off risking your life while said random stranger stays in relative safety at all?
I think getting the emotional attachment comes partly from the player, you can't guarantee it. I ditched Dogmeat the 1st chance I got. I'm more attached to Codsworth but the game isn't doing anything specific to introduce that, I just happen to like this personality as he tags along. Of course, he got parked as I met Piper so I'm clearly showing little loyalty.
As a parent of a girl of the same age, the opening to The Last of Us was very moving and something that didn't lose its impact on subsequent plays. Heavy Rain was another where it connected with some people but not others.
I think Fable 3 was the biggest offender of what you describe. I'm pretty sure I remember having to choose who would live between 2 people. It should have been a tough choice but I didn't know either so I didn't really care either way.
If the game did give you that emotional attachment then you'd miss the vast majority of what is on offer. If you to save your child then there is no way you be off on errands for random strangers. And child or no child, why would you be off risking your life while said random stranger stays in relative safety at all?
I think getting the emotional attachment comes partly from the player, you can't guarantee it. I ditched Dogmeat the 1st chance I got. I'm more attached to Codsworth but the game isn't doing anything specific to introduce that, I just happen to like this personality as he tags along. Of course, he got parked as I met Piper so I'm clearly showing little loyalty.
As a parent of a girl of the same age, the opening to The Last of Us was very moving and something that didn't lose its impact on subsequent plays. Heavy Rain was another where it connected with some people but not others.
I think Fable 3 was the biggest offender of what you describe. I'm pretty sure I remember having to choose who would live between 2 people. It should have been a tough choice but I didn't know either so I didn't really care either way.
I think in most cases this is simply a complete misinterpretation of the game's intended purpose.
Fallout 4 is a prime example of where a game is produced to provoke exploration, character advancement, "map-grabbing", with the generously baited hook of all-out combat. The "story" really is only there to progress and direct your path with "a bit of an ending". As such, your feeling of dispassionate disconnection is entirely appropriate, and the game has achieved it's goal admirably.
Bioshock Infinite was entirely the opposite, firmly placing storyline and your link with Elizabeth at the forefront, which is why it got panned so vehemently by the "FPS elitists"; you were far too wrapped up in story to take the combat "seriously". Not my opinion, I might add, I still love B.I., it's one of my all-time favourites.
The point is, if Fallout had been any more tied to the "story", it would not have been the free, wild, expansive, glorious, furious experience that it turned out to be. You can't have everything, you know...
Fallout 4 is a prime example of where a game is produced to provoke exploration, character advancement, "map-grabbing", with the generously baited hook of all-out combat. The "story" really is only there to progress and direct your path with "a bit of an ending". As such, your feeling of dispassionate disconnection is entirely appropriate, and the game has achieved it's goal admirably.
Bioshock Infinite was entirely the opposite, firmly placing storyline and your link with Elizabeth at the forefront, which is why it got panned so vehemently by the "FPS elitists"; you were far too wrapped up in story to take the combat "seriously". Not my opinion, I might add, I still love B.I., it's one of my all-time favourites.
The point is, if Fallout had been any more tied to the "story", it would not have been the free, wild, expansive, glorious, furious experience that it turned out to be. You can't have everything, you know...
A funny thing happened to me on the way to the apocalypse. I was playing Bethesda's Fallout 4, when I realised Dogmeat, the canine companion you acquire quite early on in the game, wasn't following me. I heard frenzied barking and realising he must have been tangling with the local wildlife, I leapt to his aid. 'I'm coming, Dogmeat!', I yelled internally. At least, I hope was internally, otherwise I may never be able to face the neighbours again. It was at this point that a thought struck me, like a radioactive bolt from the blue. I actually cared more about Dogmeat, a virtual mutt, than my character's son, Shaun - the same son whose kidnapping was supposed to be the impetus for the whole game.
Things didn't improve from thereon in, as I continued to feel no emotional connection to a character I was apparently supposed to care about. Indeed, my only reason for tacking the game's main missions was to gain access to new weaponry, areas and companions. This was not, I suspect, Bethesda's intention. Yet Fallout 4 isn't the only game where I've encountered this phenomenon, nor am I the only person to have noticed it. The opening chapter of The Last of Us features the demise of one of the protagonist's family members, something that's he's understandably upset about. Yet when I was playing it, and got to the aforementioned scene, I didn't feel anything at all. However, I actually ended up caring about Ellie, the character who Joel, the protagonist, has to protect as the game progresses.
The problem arises when a game tells you that you should care about a particular character, yet because no actual relationship exists, you feel nothing but indifference. This was certainly the case for me and I find it takes me right out of the game when this occurs. Destructoid's Anthony Burch talked about the issue a good five years or so ago. He suggested that the solution to the problem was to have the protagonist meet a character during the course of the game, if you intend the player to bond with the NPC in question. I'm inclined to agree, as all the character's I've cared about in-game have been ones I've met during the course of the game itself. Ellie from The Last of Us, Alyx Vance from Half Life 2, Elizabeth from BioShock, and even Dogmeat himself. And yet, five years later, gamers are still being told what to feel.
So why did this problem ever occur in the first place? My belief is that it stems from the fact that games started off being nearly devoid of story. Even now many games are no more complex than your average Michael Bay film. I'd suggest that many writers come to the medium with the view that, in terms of narrative, games should take their cues from television shows or movies. But in a game, you are the protagonist, and take an active role in the game. A movie, on the other hand, has you in a very passive role, merely viewing the action on screen. Take The Last of Us - Joel is as clearly a defined character as you're likely to get in a video game and yet, when I was playing the game, I was Joel. I mentally inserted myself into the role, and felt it was my responsibility to look after Ellie.
What can games developers do to avoid this disconnect between player and storyline? Simple – foster relationships in–game, by introducing characters during the course of the game itself. Don't expect them to care about characters just because you tell them the character they're playing should. Instead, focus on having meaningful interactions – including dialogue - between the player and the non-player character you want them to get attached to. Just don't try and tell us what to feel.
(Also posted on my Destructoid blog)
Things didn't improve from thereon in, as I continued to feel no emotional connection to a character I was apparently supposed to care about. Indeed, my only reason for tacking the game's main missions was to gain access to new weaponry, areas and companions. This was not, I suspect, Bethesda's intention. Yet Fallout 4 isn't the only game where I've encountered this phenomenon, nor am I the only person to have noticed it. The opening chapter of The Last of Us features the demise of one of the protagonist's family members, something that's he's understandably upset about. Yet when I was playing it, and got to the aforementioned scene, I didn't feel anything at all. However, I actually ended up caring about Ellie, the character who Joel, the protagonist, has to protect as the game progresses.
The problem arises when a game tells you that you should care about a particular character, yet because no actual relationship exists, you feel nothing but indifference. This was certainly the case for me and I find it takes me right out of the game when this occurs. Destructoid's Anthony Burch talked about the issue a good five years or so ago. He suggested that the solution to the problem was to have the protagonist meet a character during the course of the game, if you intend the player to bond with the NPC in question. I'm inclined to agree, as all the character's I've cared about in-game have been ones I've met during the course of the game itself. Ellie from The Last of Us, Alyx Vance from Half Life 2, Elizabeth from BioShock, and even Dogmeat himself. And yet, five years later, gamers are still being told what to feel.
So why did this problem ever occur in the first place? My belief is that it stems from the fact that games started off being nearly devoid of story. Even now many games are no more complex than your average Michael Bay film. I'd suggest that many writers come to the medium with the view that, in terms of narrative, games should take their cues from television shows or movies. But in a game, you are the protagonist, and take an active role in the game. A movie, on the other hand, has you in a very passive role, merely viewing the action on screen. Take The Last of Us - Joel is as clearly a defined character as you're likely to get in a video game and yet, when I was playing the game, I was Joel. I mentally inserted myself into the role, and felt it was my responsibility to look after Ellie.
What can games developers do to avoid this disconnect between player and storyline? Simple – foster relationships in–game, by introducing characters during the course of the game itself. Don't expect them to care about characters just because you tell them the character they're playing should. Instead, focus on having meaningful interactions – including dialogue - between the player and the non-player character you want them to get attached to. Just don't try and tell us what to feel.
(Also posted on my Destructoid blog)