Political correctness and storytelling mechanics...


Are we our own worst enemies?

Does our behavior, and our desire for stuff, our seeming inherent need to progress in some arbitrarily defined way, outweigh what we would claim to be our ideals?

Is that our fault as gamers, or is the fault of the designers who put them there?

Do either have a choice in this modern day and age when set up against the ingrained desire for instant gratification?

Those are some of the questions that sprung to mind again this week when reading about the internet frothing on all sides surrounding the political correctness, or otherwise, of the romance options in Bioware's Dragon Age II. It also ties into two elements about current game design and storytelling that are uniquely interesting (and subjects that made for some interesting discussion when I took part in the Storytelling in Games panel back in January) and worth talking about a little more.

Shouldn't it be about the characters?

Now, I don't want to down play the validity of the discussion about representing minorities in gaming, it's a good thing that games diversify the spectrum of characters that appear in our narratives. As an industry that still tends to portray even the most interesting of their heroines in significantly less clothing than their male counterparts, I think we should all consider the depth and diversity of the characters we create...but...I also do ask myself if those who get wrapped up in the 'right' or 'wrong', or the political correctness of it, are looking at it in the right way.

I wouldn't want a designer, writer or director to include a minority character (be it based on race, sexuality, religion or gender) simply because they feel the need to filling some arbitrary quota, or feel obliged to be reaching out to x,y or z demographic. I would like to think that we should be thinking more about whether the character works as, you know, a character. A character should first and foremost be whatever it needs to be to make the story, the context or the dramatic intention work. That means a character who has a specific racial background, sexual preference, belief or gender isn't there simply because they represent a certain demographic, but are in a story because they drive it forward, add interest, or ask questions of the player, and then just happen to represent a certain demographic because it makes the character interesting, memorable or is significant to their motivations.

There is an important difference there.

So personally I really don't think designers or writers of a story should be sat there concerned with a bullet point list of the sexual preferences, social or religious beliefs, or racial stereotypes that they need to cover when they plot a games characters. Or that they should have to worry about offending, or not offending, said demographics. They should be designing and writing for memorable and interesting characters that will drive a plot forward, thus hopefully allowing the player to engage with those characters, and come to care for, empathize with, or just plain despise, them.

I think it is important that designers and writers don't actively discriminate (either positively or negatively) against any race, creed, belief, gender or sexual preference, but rather seek to include as wide a variety of characters as possible in our narratives, so that we can start to explore many more interesting and mature subjects in games, and move beyond the simple stereotypes into creating deep and more meaningful characters.

..then of course we have to create those characters in a context that doesn't undermine that ideal, which brings us neatly to the next dilemma...

The RPG interference...

The next element is the way in which the very systems that drive current games forward, can also have a significant impact on how we approach game characters. You only have to play through any game that has a 'morality' system of any kind to start to understand this point. All too often in recent times games have introduced a system, with attached reward mechanics that sit alongside and influence story and character elements - Want to be an evil bastard here and shoot at the innocents? Sure, you can do that, but chalk up your obligatory +10 evil points. Want to give all your hard earned quest reward to the poor starving orphans? Viola, +10 good points. Then when gamers know that down the line, certain choices or rewards will only be possible with an 'optimal' good or evil 'score', you have a situation where the choices are no longer really about the story, but are more about the meta-game of maximizing some arbitrary goal that a designer has set for you.

The problem with this at a fundamental level is that you are creating motivations that are above and beyond those of the character that you desire your players to identify with. The character, that personality, that person you are trying so hard to establish through story and setting, that character doesn't have inclination to consider achievements, paragon points, rivalry points...but you player certainly does if you put them there.

If you have your game systems, the progression mechanics or reward incentives, actually wound up in the story, the dialog, or the character's choices, then you are effectively placing a barrier between your player and the character you want them to inhabit. Essentially you may be forcing the player into an action that does not make them comfortable as a character because their sense of progression, of winning, will win out over their wish to stay true to an invented persona or one they are associating with. Players rarely like to feel forced into choices...

On the other hand, in some ways that approach also benefits designers. It certainly encourages repeat play through of the same game. For example, many play through a game like Mass Effect twice, once to experience each of the different paragon or renegade paths. In fact that game actively punishes the player for not taking each decision in their own context, by having several later options only available if you have maxed your values, thus meaning that choosing to take a middle ground, or take those decisions in context on a case by case basis, is actually actively discouraged. Very few players like to do something that they know will do them a disservice down the line....but if you consider value for money...then maybe that design choice is actually of benefit to the player in terms of what they get from your product. It also makes many players more willing to play through twice, since if you are playing on one path, there is often not so much overlap, and the choices feel very different, as you are effectively 'playing' a different character entirely.

That is why designers and writers are faced with a challenge, there isn't a right and wrong on this subject, there is just differing perspectives, approaches and opinions.

Personally I would love for us to explore ways for the story itself, (or the context of the game world in the case of more open MMO settings) to be the driver for players, and not have any kind of scoring or rating systems effect player choices that should be about character...we already measure progression in a myriad of ways, and give it all kinds of names and definitions, in order to motivate players, we really don't have to do it for our storytelling as well. So for me, a game's story, (be it an event driven single player narrative, the background to an MMO world, or the character development in any given setting), shouldn't need to be defined, and we shouldn't need to be measured on how we react to it...because deciding how we relate to any given story is half the fun in the first place...

storytelling 968192481590911981

Post a Comment


AmandaP said...

Good read as always. I have to agree that it is very counter intuitive to have a score based on my story choices as it doesn't encourage true roleplaying of your character, but as with so much in the genre these days the RP in RPG has been replaced with a love of math.

Anonymous said...

hard earned quest reward to the poor starving orphans? Viola, +10 good points.

Should read : Voilà...

Creepy said...

I hate it when designers try and force me into heavy handed 'morale' choices that are so clearly signposted that they may as well not be a choice at all. If a game has to offer me rewards to take story choices than they are doing it wrong. It is fine to use modern technology to make the story branch and stuff for us, but they should hide all that stuff behind the scenes and not make us worry about some kind of stupid score when we are choosing how to react to any given choice they present.

Bryan said...

I think a lot of what you say makes sense, but this is one of those subjects that gamers and developers simply don't admit to the truth about.

We say that we want more complexity and depth to our stories but equally we want to run on our little content treadmills. We want to be rewarded for doing so and are quite happy for a developer to tell us a very linear story even though we are supposed to be playing and interacting.

Game devs and writers are also still in an incredibly immature phase. The adult themes and true depth of character that you might find in indie movies, are the furthest from their minds. Most game scripts and stories have about as much true pathos or wish to explore the human condition in them as you find in Iron Man or any Michael Bay movie.

Then you have the marketing folk deciding that every single action in our lives must be linked to some form of achievement based reward system. And you know what? People fall for that, and are actually happy with it.

It is sad but true. I believe that game devs might think they take story seriously but very few of them actually do.

Niko said...

Regarding that DA2 post you linked to, I find it to be in error concerning the game. I have played DA2 and I found that none of the characters were heterosexual or homosexual - they were attracted toward PC regardless of the gender (playersexual?). So, since character could be either male or female, that would make the NPCs bisexual. I understand why Bioware chose that path - they received complaints before about how this or that NPC was not romantic option for this or that gender. But I suppose there's way to please everyone here. One last note about Bioware games before I go to meat of your post: Friend of mine complains (with good reason) that no Bioware game has ever had male romantic companion who was not whiny and had excessive baggage - and needed babying. Can't argue her on that.

About morality paths... yeah. I agree on that. I dislike sliders good/evil, friend/enemy and so forth. I would much more prefer to have those done away and instead have consequences be tied to events directly. Sure, it would require game designers to be more sharp on all causalities than just how many points this or that action gives on this or that slider, but it would make things much more real feeling - and reduce the need for metagaming by some extent. Can't get rid of it, but would help, methinks.

Craig Morrison said...

Yes Niko, I think Bioware characters definitely have a theme going on there ;) Personally I don't have any objections to how they handle that element, as I said it's the meta stuff that sticks in my throat a little.

I can't claim to have the solution either, or even claim to know for sure that it is a problem...maybe the mass market is fine with the more linear storytelling elements...I think someone may have to be brave enough to try first before we know whether there is potential there...

Home item

Blog Archive

Flickr Photo


painting (212) gaming (196) Game Development (103) 40k (91) photography (89) TV (71) MMO (69) Games Industry (66) movies (63) featured (60) games (59) Must Play (53) travel (53) art (50) Age of Sigmar (47) writing (41) comics (36) Indie Games (33) Best of 2017 (25) Best of 2018 (25) Best of 2019 (25) Best of 2016 (24) Game Design (23) Oslo (23) books (22) community (20) Montreal (18) warmachine (16) hordes (15) Music (14) short story (14) tabletop (14) blogging (13) random web stuff (13) Infinity (10) kickstarter (9) storytelling (9) Norway (8) San Francisco (8) Anarchy Online (7) Blizzard (7) nanowrimo (6) zBrush (6) Age of Conan (5) Learning (5) Los Angeles (5) Audio Story (4) Blizzcon (4) California (4) GDC Europe 2012 (4) Guildball (4) MIGS 2011 (4) PAX East 2012 (4) PAX Prime 2012 (4) Teach Yourself (4) cosplay (4) inspiration (4) warhammer (4) zombies (4) Comic-con (3) Continue Magazine (3) Devcom (3) E3 2012 (3) GDC 2015 (3) GRAND (3) Gamasutra (3) Gamescom 2017 (3) Iceland (3) World of Warcraft (3) steampunk (3) Board Games (2) Global Game Jam 2017 (2) Inktober (2) Level Up 2018 (2) PAX Dev 2019 (2) PVP (2) San Diego (2) creative (2) extralife (2) lightning (2) nostalgia (2) ACAM (1) Armies on Parade 2017 (1) Armies on Parade 2021 (1) BIG Festival (1) Battlefield (1) Brutality (1) Comikaze 2014 (1) Conan (1) DICE (1) Deadzone (1) Detroit (1) Epic (1) Funcom (1) GDC 2012 (1) GDC 2013 (1) GDC 2016 (1) GameDev.World (1) Gamescom 2012 (1) Global Game Jam 2015 (1) Grand Canyon (1) HATE (1) Halloween (1) Hawaii (1) Hero Forge (1) IGDA (1) Isle of Skye (1) Korea (1) LA Comic Con 2016 (1) LVO 2018 (1) LVO 2019 (1) Las Vegas (1) Montreal Comiccon 2013 (1) New York (1) OCGRIP (1) Outside Lands (1) PAX (1) Podcasts (1) Quebec City (1) Rememberance (1) Rome (1) Scotland (1) Star Wars (1) Star Wars Celebration (1) Technology (1) Theatre Bizzare (1) Wild West Exodus (1) Yosemite (1) adventures (1) aeronautica (1) bloodbowl (1) malifaux (1) nature (1) necrons (1) ottawa (1) personal (1) retro (1) sleep no more (1) startmakinggames.com (1) storm (1) tutorial (1) vancouver (1) wondercon 2014 (1) wondercon 2015 (1) wondercon 2016 (1) wondercon 2017 (1)

Random Posts