@project343 said:
@GrantHeaslip said:
I like to judge characters by whether or not I can picture them having a day-to-day life, and I don't think either of them really pass that litmus test. I'd say they're fairly flat characters with really interesting gimmicks.
First off, the video game medium is an inherently piss-poor medium for delivering compelling narrative (and, in turn, well-realized and utterly life-like characters). The only way to incorporate interactivity with narrative in a seamless way is to make the narrative interactive, and this can only lead to compromised quality (in terms of the sacrifice of creative vision, the sacrifice of quantity/quality for budgetary reasons, and/or via the employment of the illusion of choice). Everything else that the medium can do is inherently inferior than film. There are hardware limitations to rendering, there is a disconnect from the actor's performance, and everything has to be designed to accommodate the various ways players can affect the scene. The most that you get out of the video game medium for delivering story is the added player investment in a world that they (falsely) believe that they have influence/control over.
Disagree. I would have agreed though, if I hadn't seen Japanese 'visual novel' games that often have narratives and/or characterization comparable to films or even books. Of course, some Western gamers might argue that these are just interactive graphic novels rather than video games, but these 'visual novels' are frequently referred to as 'games' in Japan. Nevertheless, what this shows is that, when video games aren't bound by the need for action-oriented gameplay, they can have stronger narratives comparable to films or books.
Log in to comment