Hey Jeff,

What do you think some takes that have been taken on Batman, such as the Arkham Asylum comic book? In it, Bruce Wayne/Batman is batshit crazy (sorry:). I sure hope the upcoming video game adaptation doesn't soften that and that the main characters remains depicted as ultimately some crazy nut who dresses up at least as ridiculously as the villains he fights.

Also, I higly recommand that you hear/watch Jonathan Blow's lectures Design Reboot (2007) and Conflicts in Game Design (2008). I think his points are excellent and tend to englobe the issue of the main character being often blander than the bad guy (which is a bit less of a constant in movies I think).
I think it comes mainly from what people expect from games (a fraction of what the medium is capable of). here's an except from a New York Times review of Halo 3 by Daniel Radosh, quoted by Blow in his lecture "Design Reboot":

"The formula followed by virtually all games is a steady progression toward victory: you accomplish tasks until you win. (...) Like cinema, games will need to embrace the dynamics of failure, tragedy, comedy and romance. They will need to stop pandering to the player’s desire for mastery in favor of enhancing the player’s emotional and intellectual life."

There. I hope I'm not too much off topic. But I think as games (hopefully) progress toward things other tragedy, romance etc., they will be more room to write unbalanced or outrageous characters who don't need to be the bad guy, and can even be the protagonist. But right now, even movies can suffer from their main protagonist being too averagely bland and well balanced. Modern mainstream comedy films suffer from that, and I found that often it's the supporting characters who bring the crazy, the interesting human moments, who make the "juices flow" (See Philip Seymour Hofman's character in Along Came Polly for exemple, bland movie, bland hero, but crazy and dimensional hero's best buddy).

There, sorry for polluting your brand new blog! These are subjects that I really like to think about.

The problem with main characters, as you say, is they have to appeal to players enough to make them want to play them for the duration of the game. The bland, putty-faced hero onto which we can imprint our own wants and needs serves the purpose of, as you say, making us care enough to keep playing.

For more narrative-driven gameplay, however, I believe that trying to steer away from the usual protagonist (caucasian male, usually dripping testosterone) and trying a little more variation in motivations would go a long way. While revenge and pursuit of justive are all well and good, it seems we've somehow become caught in a rut in these two particular aspects of game design. Also, when depicting female characters, giving a character more depth and less curves might also be a good idea.

That was one of the things that i loved about Prince of Persia : Sands of time.. and what i strongly disliked about its sequel... the character in the first game was not as typical as other games have. sure he was very skilled and such, but his emotional aspect was vulnerable and understandably arrogant because he was after all a prince... and through it all a tragic love story.. the second game (although i liked the pre-story explanation) turned him into the typical ruthless and overaggressive killing machine you see in many other games. sure several years had passed, but i just felt like all distinguishing characteristics of the character i had come to like was erased. Much like when voice actors get swapped out.

Anyway, yea overall the main character typically is vanilla enough to allow the player to bring themselves in.. I’m not saying this is how it must be.. just the general reason why there is more energy on making a compelling enemy.. because you're going to kick his ass regardless of the back story your dude has.. :)

Hey everyone,

"lowest common denominator" - that what it's all about with main characters. I don't need to point out to you, that the decision making process, on how and what the main character in a game will be, is often driven by marketing decisions, as we all know. We don't want to offend the majority of kids with a bad ass complex ambiguously rich hero, they have to roleplay, right? I guess while the production is very rigorous with the main Freeman lookalikes, so the publisher will be happy too, and the marketing can be happy reaching the 'focus-group', nobody watches your back when you come up with villains...as long as we don't get to play them.

I agree with all of you. Actually, the question you asked in the title, was answered accurately by yourself.

To me the interesting thing is, how will the main character be more customizable and rich, because of the fact, that we reach now a wider market. Girls and women don't always like to play "Master Chef".

It's about marketing. Setting debates on video games as art aside, I think it's generally a sacrifice in art for marketing purposes. Just my theory, though.

When it comes to story based games, I think another large aspect is conflict and growth. One of the best ways to work out a protagonist is to work out what you want them to be like at the end. Once you do that, make them start as the exact opposite. This often leads to quiet, stunted, demure, small, uninteresting main characters. The more of a blank state, or the more damaged, the more conflict or growth that can be fitted into the story. Now usually these characters in games are made to be identifiable, so we get either a stereotype, or we get a fairly average person when we start out (even a child sometimes).

Overall the aim is to get a character the player can identify with, and thus the emotional attachment/impact of any changes this character undergoes also drags the player through an emotional roller-coaster. Not to mention leaving a large amount of room for growth fits well into many RPG game elements, and gives you a large amount of "design space" to work in.

The villain on the other hand, is supposed to be everything the player isn't, as this generates conflict in ideal, moral conflicts, sexual tension and all those other dramatic things. So when the player is weak the villain is strong, if the PC is quiet and severe, the villain will be out-there, wacky, a psycho, flamboyant etc (think batman vs ANY batman villain really). The opposite is true, if the player is foolish brash and arrogant, then the villain is cool, calm and collected. Where the player rushes in the villain is calculating (this is much how JRPGs have a tendency to operate). Most importantly, the more powerful the player grows, the weaker the villain appears to be. The more certain the player in their beliefs, the more shaken in theirs the villain becomes (think any of numerous, "no how can this be...RAAAGH" moments.).

So where does this lead, if we play a protagonist who's (at least in the begining) normal and average, identifiable by the average joe as another person with everyday problems, then villain gets to be something we as people aren't normally, they don't have to repress their urges, they can be outwardly violent and promiscuous. Delving into moral ground we normally wouldn't.

To tie this up, the best example I can think of to demonstrate this is really Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader. Watch the progression of the two characters carefully, how differently they start out, slowly as Luke climbs in power and confidence they reach a point where one is able to attempt to seduce the other, for this is the crossing point where they are most similar. Then they begin to drift apart again, with Luke becoming more certain, and Vader becoming uncertain, able to be swayed from his path in the face of Luke's conviction and strength. It's not a straight line, but it is the pattern regardless.

Wow! A lot of great comments. It's great to hear from people who have seen and read (and thought) things that I have not.

Nino, I am also curious to see what will happen with the Arkham game. Batman has always been one of the darkest and most tortured of traditional comic heroes; angst might hit Superman or Spiderman, but Batman deals with full-on rage and inchoate violence. However, as Alex and An said, there is of course the marketing aspect to deal with.

I don't know if any of you saw "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" (to name one among many), but it's an awesome look at crippled, hateful, messy lives. I would love to see games tackle that kind of 'protagonist' -- even in indie games I don't see enough of it.

Christopher, I like your post about character development. You probably know the famous Henry James quote: "Character is plot." The character, and his conflicts, and his problems, and how he resolves them -- that's the stuff of great story. I have never thought of it from the point of view of opposites, but it is rue that many games (and movies) show that sort of development. As the hero gains knowledge/skills/allies/confidence, the seemingly invincible villain shows cracks in his armor.

I also think that certain genres are fascinating because they definitely lack that sort of opposite; I'm thinking of detective / noir books and films. Often the protagonist has little more than his or her grim determination and a dogged sense of justice. I think that those make interesting studies in power and powerlessness, and make the sense of achievement that much more compelling.

Thanks!

It's an interesting point you raise about noir and detective/crime novels. But perhaps often it's more how the other begins to slip up. In most (not all, I'm not a big reader of crime novels I couldn't empirically say), doesn't the criminal usually leave an ever accumulating trail of evidence. Often resulting in the criminal becoming more desperate until eventually there's the big reveal. But they seem to always have that moment in the middle where it could go either way, they might get away, they might not, the detective is right on the verge of a discovery, but if they don't make it, it's all over. It's ephemeral in nature but it's still there. The criminal goes from masterful, traceless, perfect, to having the detective character catch up, and for this to happen usually something has to give.