Heroism and Western RPGs.

[Archaon]

I recently managed to make Fallout 3 not crash every ten seconds when I run it. Therefore, I've spent some time playing it recently, and I got to thinking.

By and large, Japanese roleplaying games are only really called "roleplaying" games because nobody's bothered to come up with another term for them. Cloud, Vyse, Valkyrie; we play WITH these characters, but we don't really play AS them. It's true that we have control over Cloud, and we can decide where he goes, how he fights, and maybe even what he says every now and then, but at the end of the day, Cloud is still Cloud. He's not supposed to be "us". He's his own character with his own traits. When it's time to smack down some monsters, we're right there with him, but when it's time for plot, our only job is to sit quietly and watch how things unfold.

Now, that's not to say there's anything wrong with this. It's a perfectly valid way of doing things. After all, we still watch and enjoy many other forms of media even though the protagonist is not our personal avatar, and video games are no different. You can still tell a good story without involving the player directly. However, it does necessitate a different approach to things.

I mentioned Fallout 3 earlier, so let's take a look at that. There was a downloadable expansion released for this game a while ago, called "The Pitt", which promised a "lengthy quest with morally ambiguous choices".

For those of you who don't want the plot spoiled, I'll try to keep this short, but you might want to stop reading here regardless.

Ultimately, unless you just stop playing the quest altogether, you have to choose between leaving a group of diseased slaves to be worked and tortured to death, or killing the man who is keeping the slaves and kidnapping his newborn baby. Also, if you do this, his wife (who isn't involved with the slaves and just wants what's best for her kid) will become hostile and you'll have to kill her too.

As you can imagine, neither of these options leaves you feeling particularly heroic.

Now, if it had been Cloud in this situation, it wouldn't be a problem. We're interested in seeing how Cloud deals with a decision like this; or, if we actually get to push Cloud in one direction or the other, we're interested in seeing how he will feel about his actions. Perhaps Cloud will end up feeling like a bastard after making his choice, and we'll sympathise; or perhaps he'll press on, confident that he did the right thing, and we'll encourage him.

However, Fallout 3 is a western RPG, with a character that we designed ourselves. This isn't happening to Cloud. This is happening to US. There's no external character to sympathise with here. WE are the ones who end up feeling like bastards, and we do not like that, because what we want is to kick ass, fix the situation altogether and feel like heroes. (Unless you actually want to be a bastard, of course.)

There's a similar difference in scripted events; cutscenes that demand that the protagonist be captured, outwitted or otherwise defeated. When it happens to Cloud, we're angry, but it's a "good" anger; we're angry because we're attached to Cloud and we want him to succeed. When we're angry, it's because the characters matter to us, and that is a good sign.

Contrast Fallout 3. In The Pitt, you're supposed to disguise yourself as a slave and infiltrate the place. If you try to just barge right in and slaughter everyone, you get beaten unconscious and taken as a slave anyway. No matter how powerful you are, no matter what kind of gear you have, you WILL get taken down as soon as you step through the front door.

Now, when this happens to our character, to "us", we're still angry, but it's for a completely different reason. "That's bullshit! I should be able to fight my way out of this! I could kick these guys' asses if the game would just let me!" This has got nothing to do with attachment to characters and everything to do with the game having the audacity to cripple us in such a way. It's not that we failed; it's that the game HAD us fail.

Now, in a JRPG, the protagonist has to fail sometimes. We don't want Cloud to be a "perfect" hero, because that would be boring. Sometimes he has to falter, and sometimes he has to show his flaws. That's part of making a character relatable, believable and lovable. However, in a western RPG, this is not necessary. We're already attached to the protagonist, because the protagonist is us. We don't want ourselves to fail. If our avatar has flaws, we decide what they are. When our avatar suffers defeat, it should be because of our own actions and mistakes, not some forced plot event. When our avatar is in a difficult situation, we don't want to "find out" how they'll deal with it, because it's entirely up to us, and therefore we already know how they'll deal with it. So when we're forced to be a bastard with "morally ambiguous choices", it removes the positive element (watching a character develop) and just leaves the frustration.

It is for this reason that I say, "Let us be heroes."

It's OK to deprive Cloud of the chance to be a hero. When Cloud couldn't be a hero, it resulted in Aeris' death, which was undoubtedly one of the defining moments of the game.

It is not OK to deprive US of the chance. That doesn't mean you have to hand us our victories on a silver platter; by all means, make us work hard for our happy ending and it'll be all the sweeter when we get it. But do NOT put us in a situation that we simply cannot overcome no matter what we do, because all that does is piss us off.

Let us be heroes.

[F4T4L]

heroes constantly face tough decisions which essentially boils down to choosing the lesser of two evils. it's not all gumdrop houses on lollipop lane. Fallout unlike Final Fantasy gives the user in control more freedom, and "Karma" which allows you to be good or bad. Wars aren't won without some innocent blood shed unfortunately, it comes with the territory. The beauty of Fallout 3 is you always have a choice, and if you don't like either choice, well then typically you can avoid it altogether.

[Archaon]

heroes constantly face tough decisions which essentially boils down to choosing the lesser of two evils. it's not all gumdrop houses on lollipop lane.

Realistically, yes, but we're talking about video games here. Realism is not inherently desirable. "Realism" in Fallout 3, for instance, would have been getting murdered in your bedroom and dying unceremoniously before you even knew what was going on in the Vault, but it wouldn't have made for much of a game.

Besides, I'm not saying "Don't give us tough decisions." I'm saying "Don't force failure upon us." Going back to The Pitt, I could think of several different ways that I could have resolved the situation that wouldn't have screwed anyone over, (anyone who didn't deserve it, at least) but I just didn't have the option. I was stuck with "being a bastard" or "being a bastard".

Now, of course they can't possibly account for every solution that the players might come up with, and there's also time constraints to think about, but I'm pretty convinced that in this case, they were just determined to have their little morally grey scenario. They didn't want us to come out of that quest satisfied, and that, to me, seems counter-productive, because there's simply nothing to be gained by not allowing the player a satisfying ending in games like this; as I said, we don't get to watch the protagonist cope with their failure and grow closer to them for it, because we ARE the protagonist. So we just end up frustrated.

[Mr.Roboto]

Realistically, yes, but we're talking about video games here. Realism is not inherently desirable. "Realism" in Fallout 3, for instance, would have been getting murdered in your bedroom and dying unceremoniously before you even knew what was going on in the Vault, but it wouldn't have made for much of a game.

Besides, I'm not saying "Don't give us tough decisions." I'm saying "Don't force failure upon us." Going back to The Pitt, I could think of several different ways that I could have resolved the situation that wouldn't have screwed anyone over, (anyone who didn't deserve it, at least) but I just didn't have the option. I was stuck with "being a bastard" or "being a bastard".

Now, of course they can't possibly account for every solution that the players might come up with, and there's also time constraints to think about, but I'm pretty convinced that in this case, they were just determined to have their little morally grey scenario. They didn't want us to come out of that quest satisfied, and that, to me, seems counter-productive, because there's simply nothing to be gained by not allowing the player a satisfying ending in games like this; as I said, we don't get to watch the protagonist cope with their failure and grow closer to them for it, because we ARE the protagonist. So we just end up frustrated.

Don't forget the bullshit involving the Ghouls and Tenpenny Tower. Spoiler The ghouls murdering everyone inside after I negotiated with every single necessary character to get them in, only to have them fucking MURDER everyone inside. And doing the right thing, I decided to kill them, only to LOSE KARMA? REALLY?They fucking murder everyone, including the sympathizers, I kill them and I lose Karma. Fantastic logic. /spoiler

I also hated the fact that to remain neutral, you pretty much had to do either

A. Absolutely nothing

B. Balance your karma by performing good acts, then bad ones.

[Meteo Xavier]

With the exception of the permunderated Secret of Evermore, or the incredible, soul-soaring EXILE trilogy by Spiderweb Software, I find it really difficult to associate WRPG characters as heroes, mostly because the irony of being myself in a game makes it hard to feel anything out of it.

Heroism needs a strong story behind it to work. A strong story is one that is thought-out, linear at most (multi-directional at least), its own identity, its own unique conflicts, etc. etc. I feel like you only really get that through JRPG style narrative and conventions.

Its kinda hard for me to elaborate further, WRPGs have never worked out for me at all. They're too bland and lacking in structure to keep me going.

[Archaon]

Heroism needs a strong story behind it to work.

I wouldn't even say that. It's strong writing and characterisation that make the difference. Even if the story itself is just a generic "You are hero! Save the universe!" deal, good writing can make you really appreciate the impact you make on the world and people's lives throughout the game. If you care about the people in the game you will care about how your actions affect them, for good or for ill.

This is one of the major reasons why I can't play the Elder Scrolls games. I just don't give a shit about anyone in the world because they're all so bland, and that in turn makes it difficult to care about anything else.

[Native Jovian]

I'm uncertain what exactly it is you're looking for, here. Are you asking for better writing or more freedom?

You say you want more heroic options. You give an example of a situation that gives you an option between being a gleefully evil bastard and a reluctantly evil bastard. Are you saying that the options should have been between being a gleefully evil bastard and being a brave and honorable hero? Or are you saying that there should be a brave and honorable hero option and a reluctant hero option and a neutral its-not-my-problem option in addition to the gleeful and reluctant evil bastard options?

[SoulinEther]

I think having more options in these kinds of situations, in general, would be better... but think of all the excess plot you'd have to write, and then all the coding.. and the character designs..

Perhaps it's just a matter of pragmatism on the development side.

[Wina A. Kamlongera]

But is being a hero about having as many options as possible or making do with what you had?

My friend and I had a similar debate one (similar in terms that it was centred on JRPGs/WRPGs). We kept coming to a dead point when coming up with a story mainly because my focus was on coming up with a backstory for each character and his was on making an overarching plot canvas that was intriguing. We kept arguing back til we questioned/realised our respective influences (as much as we enjoy other rpgs, I love JRPGs primarily; him the "opposite").

Do you think the crafting of a JRPG and WRPG start from different angles? The main driving force of a JRPG (am gettin tired of hammering that on my phone) is characterisation whereas a game like Oblivion/Fallout 3, setting was the focal point (well, setting and how it affects the inhabitants). I might be alone in this, but the world does conveniently bend to allow Sephiroth to be badass or Cloud to draw you in.

Then again, the western concept of life is pretty well depicted in Fallout 3, don't you think? It's not really about being a hero but more about just going out there and doing as you please (no moral dogma/sense of duty to restrict you but your own judgement). *sigh* I think I rambled for too long or just waffled.

[lazygecko]

I wouldn't exactly deem Fallout 3 as the epitome of the western RPG. There's plenty of other games where you're given the option to be the cookie cutter hero if you want to. Hell, Fallout 1 and 2 probably had way more of that.

All the NPCs that just fall unconscious when you try to kill them in Oblivion and F3 gives you good insight on the Bethesda way of doing things.

[cobaltstarfire]

I think what he's saying basically boils down to "I hate being railroaded."

Because that's what happened to him in Fallout 3 (granted it happens in FF7 too, but it's more acceptable because you already know it's on rails rather than playing your own charcter).

But railroading is unavoidable in a computer controlled RPG, I mean most real life GM's have trouble not railroading their players. A computer where there are a finite number of choices possible, makes it almost impossible to not be railroaded, because the computer can't improvise like a human GM.

Of course if this is a problem you seriously want to avoid, you'd have to stick with real life role playing, and hope you have a very good game master.

[Wina A. Kamlongera]

Would you call yourself a "hero" in F3? Or just the protagonist?

GeckoYamori, what would you consider the epitome of western Rpgs thus far? Or better yet, when someone would set out making a "western rpg", who would they look to for guidance/a blueprint? I ask because I know jack about western rpgs beyond the Bethesda horizon.

[Ronyn]

Been a while since I really sat down and enjoyed a good RPG, so couldn't really comment on the games mentioned, though Fallout sure sounds tempting now. But reading this discussion made me think of something:

I predominately play RPGs, but like other game types too. I find the games I'm usually attracted to are ones with story. A great game tells a great story, really just like an interactive book really. I'm sure some would disagree, some people just want to play Madden and nothing else.

Did anyone else ever read choose your own adventure books? How many of you ever really accepted the outcome of your first read through? Or did like me and made your read more "efficient" by turning to each outcome and skipping the deaths and choosing the one that sounded the best.

Well I think games with good story are much the same. As much as I want independence, I really just want a good story. The games that can deliver that AND be interactive are among my top 10. Many of the greatest stories can be either morally ambiguous or heroic, just kinda depends on what you want to hear.

[Archaon]

Or are you saying that there should be a brave and honorable hero option and a reluctant hero option and a neutral its-not-my-problem option in addition to the gleeful and reluctant evil bastard options?

Well, ideally there would be, but that's a little much to expect unless we're all OK with RPG development times reaching Duke Nukem Forever levels.

However, if there must be two choices and two choices only; one heroic, one not. Yes, it may not be very realistic, but I think it's better to be a little unrealistic than to have the player saying "Bull. I could have done that right if the game would've let me." We don't care so much when the character that represents "us" never fails, and to have failure forced upon you just leads to pointless frustration.

And of course, the other option accommodates those who have no intention of being heroes.

(But seriously, that's another thing. If you're going to allow 'evil' characters, stop doing this bullshit where 'evil' means 'demanding a bigger reward for a quest and then killing them when they can't come up with it'. This is mostly a BioWare thing, but still. You want to be a villain, not a school bully.)

[Thalzon]

Mass Effect has a similar moral dilemma in one of its downloadable missions. In Bring Down the Sky, you ultimately have the option of saving the civilians and letting the terrorist go free (considered the "good" choice) or capturing and executing the terrorist at the cost of all 100 hostages' lives (the "bad" choice). No matter what you choose you're likely to be called on it for being a wrong choice, however (especially by that Turian council member who's never happy with anything you do, ever).

Then again, Shepherd doesn't really feel like a "you" in this case. I mean, you can make him as close to being "you" as possible, but in the end you're not seeing the story through his eyes or anything. And at least Mass Effect had the decency to have highly idealistic and highly cynical outcomes for most important game choices.

But then there's Kaiden and Ashley. SPOILERS ahead!

You gotta choose to kill one or the other. There is no way to take a third option. Also, depending on earlier choices, the lives of other soldiers may be affected as well. So, sucks to be you if your party was Shepherd, Kaiden, and Ashley. One gets to die horribly in a nuclear explosion, no exceptions.

[Native Jovian]

However, if there must be two choices and two choices only; one heroic, one not.

BioWare has this and how. They generally try to hide it by giving it names other than "good" and "evil" (or "heroic" and "villainous"), but that's pretty much what it is. KotOR has Light Side and Dark Side, obviously, but Jade Empire has "Way of the Open Palm" and "Way of the Closed Fist", and Mass Effect has "Paragon" and "Renegade". Either way, it boils down to being nice or being a dick. Except that "nice" means giving all your cash away to feed a bunch of orphans and "dick" means burning the orphanage down so you can pull the fillings out of their teeth to sell for a few extra bucks.

I rather prefer a somewhat realistic "middle ground" than the almost cartoony 100% super awesome niceness vs. 100% evil bastard dickness.

Although I have to admit that Mass Effect has some hilarious Renegade options. <Turian Councilman> You better not hang up on us again, Shepard! <Shepard> Whoooops, my finger slipped! *hangs up on them*

[Rozovian]

Been thinking about stuff like this for a while... only thinking because I haven't played western rpg's in a long time. Haven't actually really played video games much lately at all.

The whole thing stems from the story being scripted a certain way. All you need are npc's that aren't just scripted to act but also to react. Think about a town as a character. Your past actions may have led the townspeople to disregard you, to welcome and support you, to simply not like you, or to chase you out of town with pitchforks and whatnot. Sucks to be you if you ended up pissing off the townsfolk and yet have a mission to deliver X to someone in town. Sucks to be you if you're wounded and they don't want to heal you or have you stay at the inn or whatever.

Separate from that, make a big, choose-your-own-adventure type plot where you start off as a farmboy saving your farm from monsters, then accompany a traveling monster hunter somewhere, then start your own monster hunting career... where you can save the good people of Generica from monsters, catch new ones from the evil Arbitraria empire, work for the money, or something in between. You can be the good-natured hero, the kind'a costly hero, the not very heroic random guy that occasionally chases monsters, or the kind'a villainous type that helps the enemy.

Better yet if you can betray the enemy...

Was about to say, "and even better if you can become the enemy", but then it turns into an evil empire sim game instead of an rpg.

[Meteo Xavier]

Been playing BOF 3 some, Rozovian?

[Archaon]

BioWare has this and how. They generally try to hide it by giving it names other than "good" and "evil" (or "heroic" and "villainous"), but that's pretty much what it is. KotOR has Light Side and Dark Side, obviously, but Jade Empire has "Way of the Open Palm" and "Way of the Closed Fist", and Mass Effect has "Paragon" and "Renegade". Either way, it boils down to being nice or being a dick. Except that "nice" means giving all your cash away to feed a bunch of orphans and "dick" means burning the orphanage down so you can pull the fillings out of their teeth to sell for a few extra bucks.

Granted, but having the obvious good/obvious evil choice doesn't necessarily mean "ridiculously altruistic messiah" vs. "crazy mass murderer". You can tone the options down without changing the nature of the choice.

You know what I think causes this problem, though? Too many damn sidequests. The developers are so concerned with giving the player a bajillion ways to occupy themselves when they're not following the main story that they just end up becoming shallow diversions. Maybe if they'd cut the number down and have longer, more involved sidequests, it'd feel less like "Bullshitting around for more XP and loot to tackle the main quest" and more a part of the whole experience, and would also permit a wider range of choices to make.

Although I have to admit that Mass Effect has some hilarious Renegade options. <Turian Councilman> You better not hang up on us again, Shepard! <Shepard> Whoooops, my finger slipped! *hangs up on them*

Renegade Shepard is awesome. Only problem is that you never know exactly what he's going to say before he says it, so you can't be sure if you're going to be a wonderfully snide jackass or just a jock waving his guns around.