Immersion or story?

SecondClass · April 22, 2016, 07:15:09 AM

This is something that I've been thinking about while playing Fallout 4. Obviously, no book has a "silent protagonist"; the protagonist is always a well defined character with set motivations, flaws, etc. This is the root of any character based story.

But with writing video games, you're not just telling a story, you're letting the player themselves discover the story through their perspective as a character in it. Since the player controls a central figure in the plot, developers have two choices: allow the player to legitimately feel like part of the story, like they themselves have agency and weight within it, or to merely allow the player to control a pre-defined character. Both have obvious advantages and disadvantages, the latter generally allowing for a more concisely told experience, the former allowing for a more immersive one. These two things are mutually exclusive because no two players are the same. For the main character to be an immersive one, they need to have as little personal traits as possible, so the player can attach their real life traits to them.

So, in terms of what you want out of a video game, what do you think is the better approach?

Pippen · April 22, 2016, 07:21:04 AM

I like the immersion honestly. Even if it's the illusion like Mass Effect and Dragon Age. That feeling that YOU have an impact is so nice.

The experience of the story is always better than the actual story. That's why I can enjoy shitty ones.

eggsalad · April 22, 2016, 09:36:21 AM

Immersion usually. "Choice" often just leads to breaking investment and immersion when you learn to see the seams of the game, places where they had to make sure the character was bottle-necked through some event or sequence and their choices ultimately can't effect. Because some events are paramount and core to a story.

Often times a game being "off the rails" just means having to walk through a zoo, if you get the analogy.

SecondClass · April 22, 2016, 09:40:28 AM

Quote from: eggsalad on April 22, 2016, 09:36:21 AM

Immersion usually. "Choice" often just leads to breaking investment and immersion when you learn to see the seams of the game, places where they had to make sure the character was bottle-necked through some event or sequence and their choices ultimately can't effect. Because some events are paramount and core to a story.

Often times a game being "off the rails" just means having to walk through a zoo, if you get the analogy.

Immersion and choice go hand in hand, that's the problem. To play a truly immersive game you need to sacrifice story, and a game that has a plot as concise and well-told as a novel can have practically no immersion.

A game like Last of Us might let you be immersed in the world, but you're not immersed as the character.

🍁 Aria 🔮 · April 22, 2016, 10:12:23 AM

Not sure if I agree with the way you use immersion. One can be immersed in a book with a defined character. The problem is that many games just don't have great stories in the first place so they have to cover it up with non-choices and other things to distract you from it.

Although it's not like the story is THAT important in a game; the story is an excuse for the game to unfold, not the other way around.

SecondClass · April 22, 2016, 10:23:02 AM

Quote from: Prime μ₂ on April 22, 2016, 10:12:23 AM

Not sure if I agree with the way you use immersion. One can be immersed in a book with a defined character. The problem is that many games just don't have great stories in the first place so they have to cover it up with non-choices and other things to distract you from it.

Although it's not like the story is THAT important in a game; the story is an excuse for the game to unfold, not the other way around.

Maybe I'm using the wrong word. I'm talking about immersion in the sense of "being" your character. In a game like Fallout New Vegas or Halo, the player character is more or less a surrogate for the actual gamer. This allows the gamer themselves to artificially "be" in the game, making choices and decisions that they would make. That kind of personal attachment can't happen in a game tailored for narrative integrity like Spec Ops: The Line, because it would be too open to variables. When you're reading a book, you don't see yourself as the main character like you do in video games that allow it, I guess is my point. It seems we're moving away from a surrogate kind of take on game protagonists and more into a narrative one.

🍁 Aria 🔮 · April 22, 2016, 10:34:56 AM

Quote from: ALIE on April 22, 2016, 10:23:02 AM

Quote from: Prime μ₂ on April 22, 2016, 10:12:23 AM
Not sure if I agree with the way you use immersion. One can be immersed in a book with a defined character. The problem is that many games just don't have great stories in the first place so they have to cover it up with non-choices and other things to distract you from it.

Although it's not like the story is THAT important in a game; the story is an excuse for the game to unfold, not the other way around.
Maybe I'm using the wrong word. I'm talking about immersion in the sense of "being" your character. In a game like Fallout New Vegas or Halo, the player character is more or less a surrogate for the actual gamer. This allows the gamer themselves to artificially "be" in the game, making choices and decisions that they would make. That kind of personal attachment can't happen in a game tailored for narrative integrity like Spec Ops: The Line, because it would be too open to variables. When you're reading a book, you don't see yourself as the main character like you do in video games that allow it, I guess is my point. It seems we're moving away from a surrogate kind of take on game protagonists and more into a narrative one.

Well, with that definition, it really depends on the mood. Like those pick-your-adventure books were nice sometimes, but in general they're better for temporary entertainment than anything serious.

snurch · April 22, 2016, 10:37:25 AM

immersion

but if you use fallout 4 as an example not really cause the character just said whatever the fuck they wanted to say

id say some of the most immersive games are games where youre just yourself and you dont really have any set goals or objectives other than what you set yourself

not saying it has to be that way to be immersive but thats usually a good start

Verbatim · April 22, 2016, 10:40:11 AM

I don't think one is inherently better than the other, and I can't say that I even personally prefer one over the other.

When it comes to "pre-established" characters, it's important to keep in mind that most of those are essentially meant to be write-ins for the player anyway. They're often made to be as generic or as idealized as possible so that the highest number of people can relate with them, making self-insertion, and thus immersion, easier.

So in one way or another, you're pretty much always technically playing the game as yourself. I can't think of very many counterexamples off the top of my head.

SecondClass · April 22, 2016, 10:49:05 AM

Quote from: Pepsi on April 22, 2016, 10:37:25 AM

immersion

but if you use fallout 4 as an example not really cause the character just said whatever the fuck they wanted to say

id say some of the most immersive games are games where youre just yourself and you dont really have any set goals or objectives other than what you set yourself

not saying it has to be that way to be immersive but thats usually a good start

Yeah, I was using Fallout 4 as an example of - not immersion-based, as Prime pointed out - surrogate-based characterization shifting toward narrative-based characterization. The Sole Survivor in Fallout 4 is different from the Vault Dweller, Chosen One, and Lone Wanderer because he talks, voices what's going on in his head, has a pre-defined personality and traits, etc. You don't come up with these traits in your own mind and project them on your player character, the game does for you. That's a huge change from previous Fallouts.

Quote from: Verbatim on April 22, 2016, 10:40:11 AM

I don't think one is inherently better than the other, and I can't say that I even personally prefer one over the other.

When it comes to pre-established characters, it's important to keep in mind that most "pre-established" characters are essentially meant to be write-ins for the player. They're often as generic as possible so that the highest number of people can relate with them, making self-insertion, and thus immersion, easier.

So in one way or another, you're pretty much always technically playing the game as yourself. I can't think of very many counterexamples off the top of my head.

Most games until lately were dominated by stand in/surrogate characters. DOOM comes to mind as establishing the silent protagonist trend.

But now we have characters like Nathan Drake, Rico Rodriguez, FF protagonists, etc, that are more like movie characters that you simply control out of cutscenes and scripted events. The story might be better because of it, but the immersion suffers. With those characters, you're not playing as yourself, you're playing as them.

Verbatim · April 22, 2016, 10:55:10 AM

Quote from: ALIE on April 22, 2016, 10:49:05 AM

But now we have characters like Nathan Drake, Rico Rodriguez, FF protagonists, etc, that are more like movie characters that you simply control out of cutscenes and scripted events. The story might be better because of it, but the immersion suffers. With those characters, you're not playing as yourself, you're playing as them.

Not familiar with Rico Rodriguez, but I don't think Nathan Drake is necessarily a good example of that. He's not Indiana Jones--he's what you get when you take he average schmuck and take him on an adventure, dragging him through various James Bond-esque perils--but he's not James Bond.

It's evident with his personality, the way he talks, and how he's always stumbling around--he's just a regular guy.

FF protagonists can be pretty out there, though. I'll give you that.

SecondClass · April 22, 2016, 11:04:34 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on April 22, 2016, 10:55:10 AM

Quote from: ALIE on April 22, 2016, 10:49:05 AM
But now we have characters like Nathan Drake, Rico Rodriguez, FF protagonists, etc, that are more like movie characters that you simply control out of cutscenes and scripted events. The story might be better because of it, but the immersion suffers. With those characters, you're not playing as yourself, you're playing as them.
Not familiar with Rico Rodriguez, but I don't think Nathan Drake is necessarily a good example of that. He's not Indiana Jones--he's what you get when you take he average schmuck and take him on an adventure, dragging him through various James Bond-esque perils--but he's not James Bond.

It's evident with his personality, the way he talks, and how he's always stumbling around--he's just a regular guy.

FF protagonists can be pretty out there, though. I'll give you that.

Oh, absolutely. But I'm not even necessarily talking about protagonists being relatable, I'm talking about them being blank slates. Even with Nathan Drake, his personality is set in stone. If you as a person wouldn't act the way he does, it doesn't matter, because you're not Nathan Drake. He's a basic character, but still a pre-defined one. Something like this, though, obviously has the potential to tell a better story, because you don't have to account for any possible person the player chooses to make the protagonist.

A game like Call of Duty 4, Elder Scrolls, or the original Fallouts are much different. They build the plot around the main character instead of through them, because the main character essentially is the player. And a developer can't account for everyone who plays the game, so plotting becomes more contrived and clunky. The upside is that, as playing essentially an avatar, immersion takes a sharp boost.

BaconShelf · April 22, 2016, 12:46:39 PM

In an RPG, I care for immersion. I want to role play a character, not a preset one. In a linear shooter or whatever, I want a good player character with interesting backstory, dialogue, voice acting and development. It's why I prefer Halo 4 Master Chief but I'd rather go back to nonvoiced protagonists in Bethesda games.

Luciana · April 22, 2016, 01:48:59 PM

I think story for the first time through (like Mass Effect), and then immersion for the consecutive playthroughs. I don't play Skyrim still to this day because of dat amazing story.

I play it because of the world and larger than life spectacle it has.

Edit: Though honestly, immersion and story go hand in hand a lot of times, especially in RPG's.

Jocephalopod · April 22, 2016, 07:43:15 PM

immersion is story

snurch · April 22, 2016, 07:57:24 PM

Quote from: Jocephalopod on April 22, 2016, 07:43:15 PM

immersion is story

no

simulation games

and im not talking about train or boat im talking stuff like cars and flight sims where you have the controls to match

Saleem · April 22, 2016, 08:25:51 PM

I don't really get immersed so I'd go for story.

Jocephalopod · April 22, 2016, 08:29:55 PM

Quote from: Pepsi on April 22, 2016, 07:57:24 PM

Quote from: Jocephalopod on April 22, 2016, 07:43:15 PM
immersion is story
no

simulation games

and im not talking about train or boat im talking stuff like cars and flight sims where you have the controls to match

oh

i thought u were referring to immersion within a game world n shit... like the witcher or fallout.

Zonda · April 23, 2016, 03:33:29 AM

I don't inherently value one or the other when looking for games. It's generally just buying a spread of mixed levels of both, and choosing to play a game depending on what I'm in the mood for at the time.

Korra · April 24, 2016, 01:17:00 AM

Both.