GAME DESIGN: Character Archetype vs. Stereotype

[Marcus Dublin]

Here’s an interesting article regarding videogame characters: http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7153&Itemid=2&limit=1&limitstart=0 I thought you guys and gals would find this pretty interesting, I know I did. Feel free to chime in with and views you may have as well. Later!:)

[YdoUwant2know]

Pretty cool Marcus, thanks for posting this. It made for a very interesting read. I can indefinitely agree with a lot of what the writer has to say.

[xvampire]

according to Kojima's Interview in game icon.

he said that the designer decided not to put too many backstory and personality. to help the audience to refer their self as a snake.

the other game which is successfully done this thing is
Max Payne.

in conclusion, how cool or how cliche the character look, giving them imperfection on their personality or their look, will make them little more closer to the audience.

CMIIW

[cookepuss]

to help the audience to refer their self as a snake.
Guess I'm just old school. I lost interest in the character once the series left the 8-bit and went to PS. After that, it took on a more serious tone.

As far as the audience = Snake thing.... Not buying it. At least not 100%. If you look at the original promo art and concept pieces for Snake, he was clearly patterned after Michale Biehn's Kyle Reese character from "Terminator".

http://www.shamoozal.com/nerdlog/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/mg_terminator.jpg

Even if you aren't going to give him a back story, you're automatically going to think of the movie character and not yourself. I think that he even has the classic Snake headband look in the movie's future scenes.


As far as archetype VS stereotype goes, the article is right by calling it a fine line. I think that it's nearly impossible to stay within archetypal conventions without losing a sense of originality and individuality. These types have been around for so many years that they have been played out to death.

IMO, what we, as writers, need are a new set of archetypes. I've always thought that the classic ones had some holes in their ranks. Writing has evolved in the many hundreds of years since the original Greek archetypes and act structure were first devised. I don't think that enough archetypes or story structures are recognized in the formal pantheon. Even if you account for 20th century additions(eg. the anti-hero), there's still plenty of room for innovation. I just don't think writers are trying hard enough.

Giving a character a realistic imperfection or physical flaw can combat part of the trappings of old school archetypes, but you're still inherently limited by the original, base definitions.

The problem with generalizing a character is you depersonalize him. That itself can be a risky move. In some ways, it could be even worse than a cliched design. Would you be more likely to remember a Jason Voorheeves ripoff or one that looks like some random guy 2 miles over? Just asking because I just remembered the game "Splatterhouse." Interestingly, I can't really remember any other noteworthy horror game baddies.

[Daniel_C]

I think that the limits of our characters actions in game is his most important statement. How can you offer up anything of an interesting character, if all he does is run, jump push buttons and shoot stuff aimlessly for 90% of the time? Then when something storyline based actually happens, they are inert or out of our control! Integrating the story sequences into the action is the one way to bring the character to life. Not breaking the action leads us to feel not simply empathy but feel as though we are actually the character. Halo did this quite well. Though simplistic. Half life did it much better.
But we are still limited to placing a story around a game mechanic.

We also need to accept that cinema is a passive medium! We sit and watch as a character goes through arcs right in front of our eyes. However we control the game character s/he is us! We need to actually feel as though we the player are being emotionally driven somewhere.
The visceral side of games has been seen. We do feel edge of your seat action. However there is zero emotional contact between the player and the game on an emotional level we are not connected. we know we will come back to life and can keep on killing galore. Thus the way we approach our characterisation has to differ greatly from the past.

We need to give our player a connection to our characters. A simple moment of connection can be found in Sony's ICO you have been saving this girl all through the game and finally about half way through you are about to escape and she ends up saving you. a role reversal in the simplest order but one that actually gives you a video game moment. you are still in control of the action as you do jump over to her but here she catches you instead of the reverse we've seen all game. (Note: If you've played it you'll know exactly what I'm talking about if not you'll be lost. Sorry. Play it and see.)
These points are nice but what we cant do is try to constantly force connections on our player. by nature emotional connection is subtle games today are by no stretch of the imagination subtle!

In short I don't think that I know the solution to the problem but I have seen our attempts to break through to true interactive storytelling and they are though simple good attempts. If we can learn anything from them then that would be fantastic.