multiple POV characters?

[Kompatriot]

I was going to write a novel voicing my thoughts on the subject, but instead I'll just leave it open.

What do you think of the idea of playing multiple characters over the course of the story, instead of just one? Even playing for the "villains"*?







*Which, incidentally, raises another point: do you think it's better to have a morally ambiguous story, where there may be villainous characters, but where it's not clear cut "good guys" and "bad guys"?

[Oldrat]

I think that, done correctly, it would be an intresting way to tell a story (or stories, as it were). Also, I'm big on moral ambiguity, so again, if done well, it'd be a good thing in my opinion. These two would complement each other nicely, too.

[Aaron]

The first thing that came to mind when I read this was Halo 2, and I personally LOVED that whole section of the story, I thought the perspective it gave was great.

[Kompatriot]

Well, this discussion hasn't been very lively, so I'll go ahead and throw a little kindling:

Multiple POV characters could allow for more varied gameplay. The simplest instance of this would be characters with different fighting styles. A bolder example would be where the characters have different objectives, leading to altogether different gameplay. For example, if you are playing as a fugitive who's objective is to escape, the skills used to solve the problems would all involve stealth (avoid capture, kill/incapacitate without attracting attention, escape in the chase). But if the character were a warrior or soldier, the objectives would involve mastery of combat (direct combat skills, combat strategies with the aim of killing rather than incapacitating, maybe even strategy elements). What if you are a nonviolent character (e.g.a civilian on the run, maybe a child or something to that effect; think Knytt stories in terms of gameplay)?

A lot of this could be done with a single character (e.g. a different weapon = new fighting style, and of course you could have escape/stealth/combat missions plausibly with a single character), but of course, one thing that couldn't would be the storytelling, which I've already briefly discussed.

[Endoperez]

I'm not a storyteller, so I don't know how easy or hard it would be to make the story that way. However, your description of the different kinds of gameplay it allows is very interesting, and I'd very much like to see those styles tried out, perhaps in side-stories or mods instead of the main campaign.

[GaGrin]

I wouldn't say that one is better than the other, but if you want to make the villains seem in any way like actual people rather than bond-style crazy people then they at least need to have a reason for whatever villainy they are committing.

Greed, jealousy, lust, revenge, duty - whatever. But the villain is either going to be upholding some value in their own culture or fighting against it, so they need motivation that, at least to them, makes sense.

[Kompatriot]

I'm definitely all in favor of more sophisticated villains. Characters like Gollum, with whom you can sympathize, and who's morality is often ambiguous until the end (Is he going to be good or evil?), are far more interesting than flat characters like Emperor Palpatine or Sauron*.

Relating this to multiple points of view, I think at the very least playing as a character allied with the "bad guys" would go a long way towards this end. Alternatively, the story could be without clear cut good and bad sides, rather having specific villainous characters. This is much more realistic. Hitler was a bad dude, as were his cronies and his ideology; but wouldn't it be a mistake to say "all Germans were bad guys"? WWII is an example where stereotyping heroes and villains comes to easily, but look at many other dramatic points in history. In the Peloponnesian war, could you say for sure that Athens or Sparta were good or bad? Were the Confederates the "bad guys" in the American Civil War? I think certain ideologies and persons were "bad" (not that I like that word), but I am loathe to call an entire side of any conflict truly evil.

So, a richer, more realistic story would probably not try to force the audience into liking one side or another, but leaving that whole question ambiguous.






*Sauron isn't so much a character as a symbol of absolute evil, so I suppose that's an unfair criticism.

[Endoperez]

I am loathe to call an entire side of any conflict truly evil.

So, a richer, more realistic story would probably not try to force the audience into liking one side or another, but leaving that whole question ambiguous.

I think the player should be made to like one side, possibly even both sides. What should be left open is who the player agrees with. That said, I'm not sure if an action game needs a sophisticated plot.

** To be absolutely clear, Hitler was not "evil" in the traditional sense because he was "doing good" given his ideological framework, and hence, his motivations were not "evil" unless you take an outside perspective.

This is a really bad comparison. It's just calling for arguments or flames. It distracts from your otherwise good post.

[Kompatriot]

I am loathe to call an entire side of any conflict truly evil.

So, a richer, more realistic story would probably not try to force the audience into liking one side or another, but leaving that whole question ambiguous.

I think the player should be made to like one side, possibly even both sides. What should be left open is who the player agrees with. That said, I'm not sure if an action game needs a sophisticated plot.

** To be absolutely clear, Hitler was not "evil" in the traditional sense because he was "doing good" given his ideological framework, and hence, his motivations were not "evil" unless you take an outside perspective.

This is a really bad comparison. It's just calling for arguments or flames. It distracts from your otherwise good post.

Yeah, I forgot about that, I intended to edit it out. Well, so much for that.

As for whether or not an action game needs a sophisticated plot... I don't see why not. Obviously Wolfire does not have infinite resources to devote to the game, so maybe it would be good business to just finish a great action game with a dependable if not necessarily innovative story. That being said, I don't think there is anything intrinsic to the genre which is antithetical to having great stories; personally, I find action games far more immersive than RPG's, because they sit more on the simulation side of the fence than the game side.

[Endoperez]

As for whether or not an action game needs a sophisticated plot... I don't see why not. Obviously Wolfire does not have infinite resources to devote to the game, so maybe it would be good business to just finish a great action game with a dependable if not necessarily innovative story. That being said, I don't think there is anything intrinsic to the genre which is antithetical to having great stories; personally, I find action games far more immersive than RPG's, because they sit more on the simulation side of the fence than the game side.

Plot is possible, but not necessary. I didn't say they couldn't do a great and complicated plot.

However, it takes away from the focus unless it's part of the game design from the beginning. Shadow of the Colossus was designed around a story and perfecting combat against a specific type of enemies. A game like that is a rare and precious thing. If most fighting games (Tekken, Soul Calibur, Street Fighter) the focus is on the fighting and there's very little focus on plot. Trying to take the mechanics of a game not designed for plot, and changing the focus into story, can result into bad games. Like Soul Calibur Legends. There can be good variations, too, of course! I just mean that adding a larger story doesn't automatically make a game better.

[Radu]

It would be nice to play as good, evil and neutral characters.

I hate playing linear games always with the good guys. Except CoD...

[Kompatriot]

Plot is possible, but not necessary. I didn't say they couldn't do a great and complicated plot.

However, it takes away from the focus unless it's part of the game design from the beginning. Shadow of the Colossus was designed around a story and perfecting combat against a specific type of enemies. A game like that is a rare and precious thing. If most fighting games (Tekken, Soul Calibur, Street Fighter) the focus is on the fighting and there's very little focus on plot. Trying to take the mechanics of a game not designed for plot, and changing the focus into story, can result into bad games. Like Soul Calibur Legends. There can be good variations, too, of course! I just mean that adding a larger story doesn't automatically make a game better.

I would agree that a superior narrative is not needed for a better game, particularly since the focus of OG appears to be on the "game" itself (Ninja Rabbits!).

Really, with this thread, I just wanted to discuss a particular way to improve the narrative in OG, rather than justify the idea of improving the narrative.

[Nobillis]

If you read the FAQ they hint that they have the story mostly planned out already. So I personally do not think that they will implament this. Though due to the engine which they are using and the ease of which you can mod with it. I would leave such story lines and such to the community. This has advantages as it will keep the community more active with the finished product longer if they have the chance to mod. Or keep checking back for more content made by other players. Plus they could always make expansions and such if Wofire really wished.