A good way to do it is to make a character have things that only the players know about. Every human has something that only they know. If we let the player into those moments we will allow the players to feel one with the characters more than usual.
You all probably dont care but does anyone know of a trick to get back into an instagram account?? I stupidly lost my account password. I appreciate any assistance you can offer me
@Crosby Knox i really appreciate your reply. I found the site thru google and Im waiting for the hacking stuff now. Seems to take quite some time so I will get back to you later with my results.
How has your designing characters gone? I have been working on it myself and seem to have a little trouble with coming up with designs, I've just been working on basics like gestures and stuff in the mean time
@Kinjo, Hi I disagree. I usually don't post when I disagree but this guy just is too self-involved for me. He speaks likes he has all the truths. I think he thinks too much of himself. FYI: Like with the Half-life Gordon Freeman character; So yeah, perhaps, the art work can be doubted but we don't see him in the game, he's you! It's and its FPS, as in First person, you don't even see what he looks like. He's a scientist that want's to get out alive of this thing gone wrong and stumbles upon a government and alien conspiracy. What does he want?: to stay alive, what does he do?: he ask the player(you playing) to help him do this. So you try your best. Linear scripting here is needed because its not an open-world. He does not just do what people tell him, he needs all the info he can get, wich tells the story and thereby your motivation. I think Hollywood just got to his head.
Also some people do pick up ammo and health packs while you talk to them, it's pretty common even in and in particular in emergency situations where time is very valuable
I think some games such as Animal Crossing don't necessarily need characters with intense motivations, just enjoying what you already have in a way things could be completely chillax you know, though that takes some skill itself to write well
Now these are some major talking skills! I could listen to this guy for hours. This talk is fantastic and just made me to alter the main story focus of the game I want to make at the moment.
Riveted by this talk and explanation. Was looking for videos to help my son in his quest to get in to game design and found myself sucked in. Now I want to do story writing and world building...lol.
Decent talk. I disagree with the speaker about Dead Space though. 1 was isolated and atmospheric, and the silent character fit the gameplay. The dialog and interaction in Dead Space 2 completely changed the mood. That change in tone gave me the "non immersive experience" that he speaks about.
I am also in the same boat. For me, Silent Protagonists are the king class of PCs. But the general concepts taught in the video are still useful. Despite this contradiction.
I think this is the gripe I have with overpowered/smug characters, they don't especially want anything. Anime is completely rotten with that sort of thing.
I have to completely agree with the respondent, this is in no way "an anime problem", some of the most rounded and human antagonists I can think of are from anime. True, some really, really crappy ones exist in anime, but that is equally true for video games, and Hollywood movies. Most "over power" characters in any form of fiction have that issue.
If anime for you is all about neverending shounens, then you're right. But anime has much more than Naruto, Dragonball, Bleach or One Piece including overpowered characters whose powers turn against them (e.g. Madoka or Claymore). And even those shonens are not that simple at time (e.g. my namesake for One Piece). But yeah, even good anime is not secured from a pitfall - so everything beyond the Golden Age in Berserk is this kind of example.
@@LukeVilent Well in dragonball goku wants to protect the people he cares about, has and always will. As he gets stronger though he desires stronger opponents to improve himself because he gets bored (like any real person would), he seeks to challenge himself.
@@AstraAnime Well, this is exactly what the author perhaps used to mean. So the guy - whatever guy, first has stats 10 and is struggling to get over 9000 to protect the beloved ones - and here you have a drama. Suddenly his stats are over 100500 bazzillon, and in order to continue the franchise you need to drop even stronger opponents for no obvious reason except for saving eventually the very Live, Universe and Everything from an imminent annihilation. It's kinda hard not to make this into a spiral of boredom.
I would legitimately like to hear what this talk would be like applied to TLOU2. I actually enjoyed the game but I definitely wasn’t on board with a lot of character choices or what I was forced to do. But I think that reveling in that distress was a unique experience that I hadn’t really experienced before
Please try to equalize the intro and the actual talk so that the sound from the talk is clear and better distinguished, while the intro lowered a little bit. Great talks overall and this one, in particular, was awesome.
Gordon may be unlikable in HL2 and the episodes, but in HL1 I just get the sense that he's caught up in everything and essentially getting away by the skin of his teeth every time. You're powerful, sure, but you're no revered savior; just some lucky guy high on adrenaline and armed to the teeth, somehow surviving thanks to being in an absurdist reality (seriously, a physicist out-gunning the military??). And again, you're by yourself almost the whole time.
Movies also have too many of these last second lucky moments and things being too convenient at the right time. The hollow character problem is too common all over. Many games have this typical habit of making sure that the player is suddenly alone before the problems start. After the player had to deal with the mess solo, they talk about "we" as if they were present and helping with something that they wanted.
he's out-gunning the military because black mesa corporatives thought it would be a good idea to make hev suit basically an armored suit with integrated medical assistance and targeting system
Great talk! Re: Last of Us question at the end -- great game, but for me it DID have ludo-narrative dissonance. Not in regards to the character's actions, exactly... the issue there was more about the gritty realism the game espoused, contrasted with the basically inconceivable number of goombas you take on. Killing sprees were in-character, but "succeeding" at killing sprees on that scale seemed out of sync with the level of grit and realism throughout much of the game. I'm not exactly sure how that fits into the content of this talk, but it's related.
Joel doesn't come across as a battle hardened veteran and he's actually reluctant to do much of anything, even take care of Ellie, in the beginning. You could argue that his desire to protect Ellie is quite strong considering he lost his daughter, making him more capable of a killing spree, but if we're talking about skill, then I'd agree with you - as far as we know, he's just some guy. I think Ellie on the other hand was more than capable given that zombie survival is all she knows, so I felt more connected with her during her section and found it to be the highlight of the game since being a teenager made her even more vulnerable, despite being more capable than Joel. It makes sense to have her as the main character in the sequel. P.s. please don't spoil TLOU2, I've yet to play it, but good point you made there!
@@ItsPBUH Haven't played the sequel either -- looking forward to it. And yeah, combat skill is what I had in mind re: dissonance. Emotionally/motivationally it all worked for me!
@@ItsPBUH Thats an interesting point I would argue that he has had to survive for 20 years in that world but I can definitely see where your point of view comes from.
I would say that you where not able to suspend your disbelief of the infinite enemy hoard trope due to the grounded and realistic aesthetic atmosphere the game used. which is an interesting consequence of the way they chose to tell the story.
I disagree majorly on his point about Gordon Freeman having no objectives or intentions for himself. If you play Half-Life 1, when the dimensional rift occurs, you (as Gordon Freeman) witness the massacre and carnage of many scientists, well before you pick up that first weapon - the crowbar. Immediately after obtaining it, Gordon faces a headcrab himself, and has to decide if he will eliminate it to enact revenge. This establishes the character’s objective through gameplay, and it explains his motives throughout the rest of the series: Gordon wants to return the aliens to their home world, and he will do whatever he can to achieve that goal.
he does not have a personality and he does not have objectives, you have. He is just an avatar and it would be a lie to say that he is a good character. Whether he is or not does not matter because it isn't the main focus of Half-Life.
I could argue that while you are playing, you are ccrafting a story. Your own story. And that is unique abot videogames. There will always be stories in videogames. Not all of them are told through traditional storytelling, though
About "Last of Us"; I actually didn't experience any disunity of want or purpose at the end. I have a daughter who was close (enough) to Ellie's age, and part of the "feel" of the relationship resonated with me. I would have curb stumped every single living creature in that building to get her out, and fuck the world. Just to say, that personal life experience goes a long way toward determining the difference between unity or disunity.
>Creating strong characters >Narrative lead on the tryhard, "look MILLENNIALS we're HECKIN RELATABLE" Saint's Row reboot Take this man's advice with a grain of salt.
I'd actually say his talk shows why people should be more open minded about the new Saints Row Reboot. So much of what he talks about can be seen with what they are doing and how they are likely to handle things. The bit about Walter White as a character and the subject of contrast was a big one (especially since Breaking Bad is a clear inspiration for the game) "one of the things that makes characters really interesting is when you have maximum contrast between their characterization and the actions that they take" With Walter White that contrast is how he starts as a meek chemistry teacher and goes on to become a drug kingpin. Likewise there is a similar contrast at work with the characters introduced for the new Saints Row reboot and their eventual goal of forming a criminal empire. The contrast is what will make them interesting characters because it allows for more of a journey as they have to grow and evolve to become the new Saints rather than starting already custom made for it. If they already fit the roles like a glove then there's far less room for them to grow and develop over the course of the story because they would already be most of the way there. But in this case they aren't there yet and that's the idea, just like Walter White as a chemistry teacher wasn't yet at the point of being a drug kingpin. He had to go through various events, set backs, difficulties, and character growth to get there just like the new characters likely will on their way to becoming "Saints" in the new game. Also on the subject of unifying character purpose. The new crew want to grow into a criminal empire, likewise fans will want them to grow as well so that they can become the characters people want the Saints to be. Players want the Saints and therefore have a vested interest in these characters growing into people who can properly fill that role. Unification of action, the characters will work to build up a gang and eventually a criminal empire and that's exactly again what players will want to do as well. People have been clamoring for a return to some of the gang concepts of early titles and not only are we getting that but we get to watch it get built up from complete scratch all the way to a criminal empire. The importance of characters having to have obstacles between the character and the objective. Meaning this new crew will inevitably face numerous obstacles and hardships in order to get what they want which in turn forces the aforementioned character growth to change them from nobodies to Saints. He very clearly knows what he's talking about and the fact that what's going on with the new game fits so well with the concepts in this talk just shows that he and Volition aren't just making this up as they go or doing it on a whim. They have a plan for how it needs to be handled to make it work even if that's not immediately obvious with where it begins.
he has outstanding talking skills, though his definitions, overcimplifications and classifications makes my face sour. it all began with dividing games on linear and snadbox (oh man), etc. though i understand why he does that. but there are takeaways, expecially the things he talks about in the end. good talk.
I think gordon freeman is the perfect example of a immersive character because of all the micro decisions that gordon can do. For example you can run to the test chamber or you walk around and explode peoples lunches and bother people with their experiments. Another example you can shoot every guard and scientist or save everyone thus giving players a personal representation of gordons characters in their universe.
oh this helped me realize what's bothering me with Death Stranding. I've been playing for ~3h so far and I feel like the game keeps alternating between addressing me as if I'm either sam the character or me the character. on one hand I'm experienced delivery guy that seems to share history with people in Bridge organisation (Sam Proter, an established character I the player commandeer) and then it will switch and address me as if I'm an outsider who doesn't know anything about how stuff works around here (me, the player, interacting with the world through my avatar). I don't mind the meta hints and explanations in form of on-screen text, but the fully voiced, in character dialogues explaining to Sam who his mother is w/o any clear in-world reason do bother me.
I'm fine with not having a good story, rather than having someone have a half-story. Hollow characters, predictable plot, painful to watch love story, with blatant fan service. I can't. I kind of prefer characters who "need" things, more than want them, but I guess that's the same thing.
A blank canvas at least offers the possibilities... Interesting thought... One can make someone need something, but to want something is his decision. So I guess a game attempting to make someone want something has to establish the need and then the player and character wanting it are automatically on the same page, while establishing that a character wants something forces to player to just follow him.
Herr Schmidt empty characters are rough. Bella from twilight is an empty character. She has brown hair, has divorced parents, is "pretty", and her biggest personal concern is that she's too fat. That is all that exists about her back story, and that exists about her appearance. Anyone who doesn't relate to that at all doesn't insert themselves into her character, they just see her as a disposable background character whose best purpose is as vampire food. It's the same with the emotionless white males with brown hair and husky quiet voices especially if its like it was in Watchdogs 1 where it's a emotionless white male with brown hair who is also a a middle aged programmer.
I think that the answer to The question is slightly different. Character is not gameplay so much as gameplay is the player. When we play, the gameplay we experience is OUR actions and our choices. This is why they are so engaging to us as participants. The actual character is the person the designers construct. This is part of where the conflict of bad game design occurs, as the gameplay we experience conflicts with the person we are shown on screen. This is where the Ludonarrative dissonance argument begins, and though we may not all agree on the perpetrators I think we all agree it happens. This is where I think the bulk of these issues occur, as our gameplay, our spirit of action that we the player embody grinds against the character we are presented with in unlikable ways.
But they design the gameplay to fit the char, like if ur playin' Barbie's dream house, and they added a gameplay mechanic where she wield's a torch, n' start's lightin' asses on fire, that's a gameplay reflection on HER. Doesn't matter wat U do, just the fact that it's there shows that Character -> gameplay. Not to mention if u add Bazooka's, Medieval Sword's, n'' Ninja Dagger's - 2 her arsenal. -',`x'D"
But that's not what she's doing, that's what you're making her do. She has the torch, but I choose how and what she does with it, but often we see in games that what we do with the character is not what they are necessarily assumed to be doing and that their actions are more diverse when they are disconnected from us. This is often visible in cutscenes, where our characters end up having not only more diverse reactions compared to what we can express and that their feelings on a situation can be not only different from ours but dichotomously opposed. This is how games can create ludonarrative dissonance, as you get the Nathan Drake scenario where Nathan Drake is somehow dropping pithy one liners after killing a small village of people and seem like a sociopath. Man, I want to go into this more but I am not very verbose coming off of spring break with little sleep XD.
Careful violation of unity of purpose can be incredible. Spoilers: Universal Paperclips starts out unified enough: make number go up. But I actually have any interest in myself or anyone else tiling the universe with paperclips, and getting out of my head and adopting - for this fictional experience - such an alien purpose was a fascinating experience, particularly when you're then confronted with the question of just what that purpose means when you encounter the drifters.
30:46 "Unity of trait is kind of not that important" I mean... yes it is? he's speaking for himself there. I am sick and tired of not being able to be myself in games, to the point where I've passed over or refunded games that lacked avatar creation or forced a voice and characterization on me. I think unity of trait is maybe the MOST important of the three. 32:25 "You don't need to make me BE your character, you just need to make me want to WORK with them." This is the exact opposite of how it should be -- games exist in order to let the player BE the avatar, and you need to have *NPCs* they want to work with. I was hoping this talk would be about creating memorable characters for the player to INTERACT with, not about new and exciting ways to force characterization on players instead of letting them be themselves.
Gone Home is really overrated by some people. The speaker hyperbole about it after complaining that people like Gordon Freeman or saying that early Link is just an avatar really takes a lot of credibility for me. Like if what characters do doesn't define in some way the avatar you are using. Exploring, trying to save others, not flinching facing danger, using smarts, etc also defines avatar into characters. If Half Life were about a Physicist trying to escape the facility by sneaking and solving puzzles. Gordon Freeman will be a whole new characters, way less heroic but still valid character, a more selfish and less brave character.
OH! I bet this guy wrote the leverage episode where Partman took the lead on a grift, and he turned it into an immersive con to scam some bad billionaires. but near the end, their immersion was broken. it caught me by surprise that it seemed whoever wrote that episode had to be somewhat versed in game design to come up with that whole episode concept. now i know why lmao
Funny using Uncharted 2 as an example, I really didn't align with the character in want, thought or traits. Guess that's part of why I never finished it. Ended up more focused on the writing, scripting and level design. Interesting but not really immersive.
It's funny how he pretends that "half" the audience of Metroid wouldn't have Unity of Trait with Samus because of the reveal that she's female. Yeah, that was a title on the NES that came out in 1987. The players were 99% preadolescent boys.
I much prefer a silent protagonist no matter what this guy thinks. I can put whatever I want into his/her words when dealing with NPC's, could be grunts and nothing but grunts(My first Gordon sounded like an ape), sarcasm, wildly off topic rants followed by back to topic just before hitting the choice, or full on robotic down to business and only business. I the player headcanon the character and the character always matches the gameplay I choose to do. The character never ever says something that is out of character for the gameplay I am doing. Every voiced character I have played has said something completely different than how the character was played, every single one of them. Then you add dialogue choices... and do they match what was written and what was said and in the tone the player expected? Very rarely. No matter what you cannot ever program every instance of what every human playing the game can create in their own head for dialogue. That is an impossible task. You can program the game to allow for every instance of what every human playing the game can create in their own head for dialogue by not adding dialogue to the protagonist... And that includes NPC reactions not matching the few words in the choice.
Ubisoft and Activision games are popular too. You need to tell what you are talking about. The challenge of the game or the story? I dont think that much people would FINISH hatred just for the story. Also manhunt isnt popular because its a game, its because word of mouth "hey man, you know this game which you strangle people using a bag?", it gets bigger and bigger and people who play the game plays it for a 30 minute and get bored. You call that popular, or ''popular''?
Doesn't the speaker contradicts himself when he says that a bad character is the one who is told to do something, but then if you return to his first slide where he lists types of protagonists, you realize that all of the protagonists in all of the listed games are told to do things. BioWare games, Bethesda games, pretty much everything that isn't a sandbox game, characters get bossed around to do something for someone. In Witcher games Geralt also follows orders, in KotOR 1 and 2, in Fallout games. Yes, some of these games don't have meaningful and impactful outcomes whatsoever, because those particular games are written with an illusion of choice, therefore nothing you decide matters, in other games you do have some amount of freedom but the end is the same - you get told to choose from a preset number of options. So, I don't know, his definition of good/bad character is wrong. Maybe he confused it with player/character agency, and even then, that hardly matters in a linearly narrative games.
You're kind of taking what he is saying a little too literally and missing the point that is being made with the statement. When he says that it's a problem for characters to do what they are told that isn't a overarching statement that applies to every single iteration of a character being told something. You have to note the context of the rest of the talk alongside it. To give an example look at Gordon Freeman vs Geralt. Gordon Freeman has no real personality. He gets told what to do, and he does it. No context from him, no real involvement from him. As Bernstein mentions towards the start he's basically an avatar. He may have a face and some background details but we aren't given any real context of what Gordon wants, why Gordon is doing this, what Gordon thinks about what's happening. He's a blank canvas for the player to take control of which while I wouldn't say that's automatically a bad thing it does make him fairly weak in terms of being an actual character. Now compare that to Geralt. Yes Geralt often does things he is told but there's context behind that. He takes jobs because he's a witcher and that's his career (also because he wants money), he does what he is told because it will help him achieve his own desires, he takes orders because it is to help a friend. And beyond that simple act of doing the action we also get all sorts of other context of Geralt's thoughts and involvement in regards to what he's doing through his dialogue and response to what is happening around him. As a more specific example at the beginning of Witcher 3 you have the Gryphon hunt. Geralt and Vesemir openly state that they wouldn't do it for free Geralt only takes on the job because he then finds out that doing so could lead to information on Yennefer. So while he is doing something he is being told to do there is character motivation and context backing it up. Beyond this as he goes through the quest we get opportunities to explore his thoughts on the matter such as his dialogue with the Nilfgardian commander over how he's handling their control of the territory. Geralt isn't just an avatar, he's not just mindlessly doing the task with context or comment. He's an actual character who has his own thoughts, opinions, and motivations which is the key difference and that is the point Bernstein is making overall. It's not purely just a case of doing what they are told = bad, That point is in combination with the rest of the discussion regarding the difference between a character and an avatar.
@@CeliriaRose Hello:) Dammit, I was writing a well-structured comment, about 7000 character long, and then I pressed some combination of keys on my keyboard and it disappeared. The worst thing is, I hardly remember or care enough to write it again, or to even make a better version of it, so I'll just say this: you are correct, but I was talking about how characters are essentially led to an ending, doesn't matter whether they serve as a function (Gordon) or they're an actual person (Geralt). The difference between Gordon and Geralt is that Geralt's rationale falls under grand narrative and the story of the game, which makes it a good dramatic peice to observe and participate in, while Gordon simply observes and reacts in order to progress through the rest of the game by observing more of the story (this is Call Of Duty 101).
@@phlegios I mean you aren't technically wrong but given the talk is expressly about character writing it's reasonable for it to take a stance more in that direction than the idea of the mostly blank observer type of protagonist. If it was a more broad talk just about making a good game protagonist there would be more room for debate but in regards specifically to strong character writing an in depth character like Geralt is obviously going to be the clear winner simply due to the fact that silent protagonists are weakly written characters by design (because they aren't supposed to really be characters beyond a basic context to justify their existance within the story). So in regards to your original comment he's not contradicting himself because the talk is specifically on the subject of strongly written characters as opposed to simply being a good protagonist. Also I would add a side note that good characters aren't necessarily lead to an ending. Ideally in character writing you want it to feel like the characters were the ones creating their own path. They make their own decisions, they have their own will. The player will inevitably end up being lead but it's a matter of whether it's the NPCs or the protagonist who does the leading.
@@CeliriaRose Maybe you're right in that he didn't say anything contradictory. I haven't watched this vid since the first time 6 months ago, and really now isn't the time to rewatch it, so I'll just agree with you on that one. Also, could you note (although there's no need, just curious) any games where the protagonist moves the story forward instead of NPCs doing the job for them? Maybe we could argue over that topic :)
@@phlegios Witcher 3 as mentioned is primarily driven by Geralt primarily in regards to him trying to save/help Ciri (though towards the end Ciri takes some control to fit the theme of the story). The Uncharted games are generally driven forward by Nathan Drake with him pursuing the treasure and seeking out clues. Red Dead Redemption 2 has a mix where early on Arthur starts more subservient to other characters but gradually shifts to being more in control of what he does later on. Now that I think about it Rockstar tends to like that kind of style of a character being pushed around until eventually breaking free as other games like GTA V and Max Payne 3 follow a similar style. Speaking of Max Payne 1 was also driven by it's titular character (though most revenge based stories kind of naturally lend towards that). It's actually a bit tough to come up with a lot as many games tend to like to lean towards either more simple blank protagonists that won't get in the way or fully player driven.
Very good talk but I think he didn't understand the point of Dead Space. The break in Unity of Purpose is part of the storytelling in that case. It's one of those "know the rules so you can break them masterfully" things in storytelling. Isaac was clearly being manipulated to do something stupid, and you, as a player who is not being controlled, knows this. But Isaac can't know because he is being mind-whammied. It's dramatic irony and IMO a very good story beat for a game. Same thing happens in TLOU2, although I'm not a fan of that game.
The Uncharted opening makes the character less likable to me. He's talking to himself. That's just weird. Perhaps you could call it a break in unity of action. It's not even necessary exposition. I'm also apathetic to the generic dilemma he's thrust into. I guess I wouldn't like the actual game ;P
Aw-fucking-esome talk!! I think GTA 4 it's a perfect example of ludo narrative disonance, Niko it's very traumatized because of the horrible things he had to do during war. But then the game gives you green lights to commit murder and rob cars. I think it's a great character but maybe the "gamey" implementation wasn't right
There is a reason why people say pack man is a character 6:42 Mechanics are also the story, they are not two easily separable things. 9:57 there are games without stated objectives in which the objective is the game play. This definition is formulaic, and it forgets about the number of stories that end without wants achieved or obstacles overcome in all sorts of mediums. It would be much more accurate to say that the definition of story is character and that the definition of character is story. 17:10 but all that stuff is character, and all of that stuff is story. It is totally how people are defined and not just how you might describe them. peoples wants are a part of their circumstances, its not just "within", our wants are us in more complicated ways. This approach to formalizing stories just breaks things down into these separate definitions for things that really can't be separated if they are to be actually understood. Most people who have really tried to peruse good writing or art or games will tell you that fundamentally there is no formula or recipes for it. We all still need to use definitions to communicate and describe things, but those things are never discrete definitions. What things like character, story, etc are, can only really be defined by what they all are together.
OMG I know now what went wrong with Star Wars!!! The real story is ALWAYS about the character. And a character is made by one simpel rule: "A person who want something, badly" What do the original characters in Star Wars ep 4,5,6 want so badly? What do any characters want so badly in ep8 and after? Ep 4,5,6 Luke want badly to: Know his father, know the force, save the princess, save his friends, become a jedi master Ep 8 Luke want badly to: Drink milk, say goodbye to Leia? Try that to all the characters in all ep. and you found that even Darth Mall is a strong character that want something badly.
Sorry, hate to break it to you. But you didn't seem to get it at all then. The latest movies didnt just lack strong written characters. It lacked plot as a whole seeing as it just redid the same story with the same kind of characters. (father son, turning evil turning good, killing baddie) It was very inconsistent and lacked continuity. The new sabers still feel weird to me, the protagonist being strong with the force not needing any training felt very off since it was nothing like how it was with anakin) There were no force powers in most of the fights despite her being strong with the force and not needing any training. So it also lacked fitting star wars like fight choreography. You bring up Darth Maul, which has an excellent fight / duel sequence that people love to refer to to this day.. But the Fight Choreography in the latest movies is just so incredibly bad, that every time you go and watch the new films, you are left thinking why the heroes won a particular fight with all these clunky moves they put out.
@@somethingsomething7507 In the case of the topic this Ted Talk is about. I see why the new Star Wars went wrong with their Characters. In the case of everything else as you mention? You are right, it was not only the Characters that went wrong. Everything went wrong. Not even have Darth Maul some great moves, but he also has a stronger will and therefore is a stronger character than Ray. According to this Ted Talk.
Yes, as is (almost) always the case. There are pretty simple rules about how to build a theme, story, characters, story arcs etc. and there is an incredible amount of movies that just don't do it. It's also why I defend episode 1 - it has that. It is poorly shot, it has bad lines, etc. but everyone has some motivation, some goals, plot has a reason, etc.
"People who have an unity of traits but don't share the same purpose will also not achieve unity of action, thus become enemies." Holy shit you just summoned up all of my disfuncional relationships in one sentence. Mind blown! 🤯 Now I am convinced that a great game designer needs to be a knowledgeable psychologist first...
@@LieseFury That is considering you did find it.. And read it.. I never read codex's in games. You want me to understand your world, either show it to me or explain it as I go along through a more immersive approach rather than a wall of text. This can be an npc giving pieces of information, this can be through a clue finding thing that you see in many other rpgs and Gone Home
I don't think that every character needs to want something. Not everyone is going to be driven to some dire goal all the time. We tell stories about characters who want things, because that's a key part of the idea of adventure, but the random merchant isn't necessarily on an adventure. The merchant is just going through his daily grind.
I know this reply is a year late, but whatever. Just by looking at the characters and game examples he gives it's clear to see he means all major characters. So he is saying this principal should always apply to your main character, the antagonist, companions and yes it should also always apply to any major named npc like a quest giver or someone of importance like a landlord, family member, mentor, etc as well. And I 100% agree with this. So to clarify, a merchant the player talks to whose only purpose in your game is to influence the player's gold or inventory space obviously does not apply to this concept. That just wouldn't be very practical. Ofcourse, this does not mean a merchant cant be an npc that gets introduced, dreams of opening up a shop somewhere and later in your game opens up that shop whether it be through timetravelling mechanics, or having the player helping them out in the form of giving away their gold. The important take away is that by giving a character a want, you have added a layer to these characters that allow the player to be more immersed into your world. Again, it does and should not apply to all characters, but if you want a stronger represented character in your world, this is how you do it.
Merchants are also not the people you go to for character development and the like, they are here on both levels here to buy and sell stuff, in most games the fact that they don't go beyond that doesn't matter to the players
After the fact, you could blow gazillion theories. But truth is most of good things are the way they are is because someone fiddled with idea, and decided it's cool and left it. Nobody has 12-hour meetings on what color characters hair should be, anywhere, ever. (Except for Valve, perhaps. They love circlejerking around theories so that's why HL3 will never get done.) Those talks are funny
While there is some truth to "let it go at some point" , "cool" is not a metric. Composition and Design is a deep topic and when properly applied, separates the emotionally working games from the ones that don't. Just like with paintings. Yes, it is absolutely worth it to dabble hours or days establishing proper use of color theory for your game. It is not something arbritrary or spontanious. At least not entirely. It requires a lot of knowledge and iteration, or "fiddling".
So he has a big problem with people liking Gordon Freeman, but can't figure out how to play dragon's age without ramping his roleplay slider all the way to 11? I got halfway through the talk and saw zero evidence that this guy has any idea about what a good character is.
In swedish we have two words that separate game into two categories. First one is "spel", it's something like chess. And then there's "lek" which is things like "house". You can't win at "hourse" or "fireman" but you can win at "spel". I think Gone home might have more in common with playing "house" than it does with chess.
Are technical manuals for science fiction stories games? Is the Incredible Cross Sections a game? If no, than neither is Dear Esther or Gone home. They are loosley structured information with no challange or goal.
Are technical manuals for science fiction stories games? Is the Incredible Cross Sections a game? If no, than neither is Dear Esther or Gone home. They are loosley structured information with no challange or goal.
I am so mesmarized by the quality of these talks. Thanks from the heart GDC for uploading and keeping these videos for us to learn.
A good way to do it is to make a character have things that only the players know about. Every human has something that only they know. If we let the player into those moments we will allow the players to feel one with the characters more than usual.
41:32
You all probably dont care but does anyone know of a trick to get back into an instagram account??
I stupidly lost my account password. I appreciate any assistance you can offer me
@Adam Harlan Instablaster ;)
@Crosby Knox i really appreciate your reply. I found the site thru google and Im waiting for the hacking stuff now.
Seems to take quite some time so I will get back to you later with my results.
@Crosby Knox it did the trick and I now got access to my account again. Im so happy!
Thank you so much, you saved my account!
It's always so much pleasure to have your gut feelings for stories finally defined, named and classified. Thank you, Jeremy Bernstein!
was looking for information on designing characters, as in, drawing them. found this by accident. loved it. fantastic food for thought here.
How has your designing characters gone? I have been working on it myself and seem to have a little trouble with coming up with designs, I've just been working on basics like gestures and stuff in the mean time
This guy definitely knows what he's talking about. Great talk!
@Kinjo, Hi I disagree. I usually don't post when I disagree but this guy just is too self-involved for me. He speaks likes he has all the truths. I think he thinks too much of himself.
FYI: Like with the Half-life Gordon Freeman character; So yeah, perhaps, the art work can be doubted but we don't see him in the game, he's you! It's and its FPS, as in First person, you don't even see what he looks like. He's a scientist that want's to get out alive of this thing gone wrong and stumbles upon a government and alien conspiracy. What does he want?: to stay alive, what does he do?: he ask the player(you playing) to help him do this. So you try your best. Linear scripting here is needed because its not an open-world. He does not just do what people tell him, he needs all the info he can get, wich tells the story and thereby your motivation.
I think Hollywood just got to his head.
Also some people do pick up ammo and health packs while you talk to them, it's pretty common even in and in particular in emergency situations where time is very valuable
An amazing talk that have completely missed over all these years. Definitely need to revisit and rewatch it!
"All the Dude ever wanted was his rug back."
Could you please sign my petition?
I think some games such as Animal Crossing don't necessarily need characters with intense motivations, just enjoying what you already have in a way
things could be completely chillax you know, though that takes some skill itself to write well
Yeah, that conflict thing is all the fuss in quick USA functional narrative, but not a wholesome thing.
Now these are some major talking skills! I could listen to this guy for hours. This talk is fantastic and just made me to alter the main story focus of the game I want to make at the moment.
Riveted by this talk and explanation. Was looking for videos to help my son in his quest to get in to game design and found myself sucked in. Now I want to do story writing and world building...lol.
Damn, you're one good dad
After 2 years, did you do it?
This was so much better than I thought it would be, absolute educational gold.
Decent talk. I disagree with the speaker about Dead Space though. 1 was isolated and atmospheric, and the silent character fit the gameplay. The dialog and interaction in Dead Space 2 completely changed the mood. That change in tone gave me the "non immersive experience" that he speaks about.
I am also in the same boat. For me, Silent Protagonists are the king class of PCs. But the general concepts taught in the video are still useful. Despite this contradiction.
I disagree with him about "Gone Home" being a game.
@@pockypurse :D
I am glad there is still some one who knows about Legend of Dragoon
Same. A brand new HD overhaul Remake would sell very well today.
Right? LoD was my final fantasy
I think this is the gripe I have with overpowered/smug characters, they don't especially want anything. Anime is completely rotten with that sort of thing.
I have to completely agree with the respondent, this is in no way "an anime problem", some of the most rounded and human antagonists I can think of are from anime. True, some really, really crappy ones exist in anime, but that is equally true for video games, and Hollywood movies. Most "over power" characters in any form of fiction have that issue.
If anime for you is all about neverending shounens, then you're right. But anime has much more than Naruto, Dragonball, Bleach or One Piece including overpowered characters whose powers turn against them (e.g. Madoka or Claymore). And even those shonens are not that simple at time (e.g. my namesake for One Piece).
But yeah, even good anime is not secured from a pitfall - so everything beyond the Golden Age in Berserk is this kind of example.
@@LukeVilent Well in dragonball goku wants to protect the people he cares about, has and always will. As he gets stronger though he desires stronger opponents to improve himself because he gets bored (like any real person would), he seeks to challenge himself.
@@AstraAnime Well, this is exactly what the author perhaps used to mean. So the guy - whatever guy, first has stats 10 and is struggling to get over 9000 to protect the beloved ones - and here you have a drama. Suddenly his stats are over 100500 bazzillon, and in order to continue the franchise you need to drop even stronger opponents for no obvious reason except for saving eventually the very Live, Universe and Everything from an imminent annihilation. It's kinda hard not to make this into a spiral of boredom.
Their want is the conflict
Jeremy: Make sure the player's wants and the character's wants are aligned
Neil Druckmann: Hold my beer
I knew I'd find one of these here lol
I was wondering if anyone commented this, and here it is xD. I wonder what this guy thinks about that game.
The Last of Us 2 😂
Lol, didn't work on me at all
I would legitimately like to hear what this talk would be like applied to TLOU2. I actually enjoyed the game but I definitely wasn’t on board with a lot of character choices or what I was forced to do. But I think that reveling in that distress was a unique experience that I hadn’t really experienced before
Please try to equalize the intro and the actual talk so that the sound from the talk is clear and better distinguished, while the intro lowered a little bit. Great talks overall and this one, in particular, was awesome.
14:30 if the want is the definition of a character, then the action they take is what defines them
Gordon may be unlikable in HL2 and the episodes, but in HL1 I just get the sense that he's caught up in everything and essentially getting away by the skin of his teeth every time. You're powerful, sure, but you're no revered savior; just some lucky guy high on adrenaline and armed to the teeth, somehow surviving thanks to being in an absurdist reality (seriously, a physicist out-gunning the military??). And again, you're by yourself almost the whole time.
Movies also have too many of these last second lucky moments and things being too convenient at the right time. The hollow character problem is too common all over. Many games have this typical habit of making sure that the player is suddenly alone before the problems start. After the player had to deal with the mess solo, they talk about "we" as if they were present and helping with something that they wanted.
he's out-gunning the military because black mesa corporatives thought it would be a good idea to make hev suit basically an armored suit with integrated medical assistance and targeting system
I learned many things in focus watch this time, really appreciated.
Great talk!
Re: Last of Us question at the end -- great game, but for me it DID have ludo-narrative dissonance. Not in regards to the character's actions, exactly... the issue there was more about the gritty realism the game espoused, contrasted with the basically inconceivable number of goombas you take on. Killing sprees were in-character, but "succeeding" at killing sprees on that scale seemed out of sync with the level of grit and realism throughout much of the game. I'm not exactly sure how that fits into the content of this talk, but it's related.
Joel doesn't come across as a battle hardened veteran and he's actually reluctant to do much of anything, even take care of Ellie, in the beginning. You could argue that his desire to protect Ellie is quite strong considering he lost his daughter, making him more capable of a killing spree, but if we're talking about skill, then I'd agree with you - as far as we know, he's just some guy. I think Ellie on the other hand was more than capable given that zombie survival is all she knows, so I felt more connected with her during her section and found it to be the highlight of the game since being a teenager made her even more vulnerable, despite being more capable than Joel. It makes sense to have her as the main character in the sequel.
P.s. please don't spoil TLOU2, I've yet to play it, but good point you made there!
@@ItsPBUH Haven't played the sequel either -- looking forward to it.
And yeah, combat skill is what I had in mind re: dissonance. Emotionally/motivationally it all worked for me!
@@ItsPBUH Thats an interesting point I would argue that he has had to survive for 20 years in that world but I can definitely see where your point of view comes from.
I would say that you where not able to suspend your disbelief of the infinite enemy hoard trope due to the grounded and realistic aesthetic atmosphere the game used. which is an interesting consequence of the way they chose to tell the story.
I disagree majorly on his point about Gordon Freeman having no objectives or intentions for himself. If you play Half-Life 1, when the dimensional rift occurs, you (as Gordon Freeman) witness the massacre and carnage of many scientists, well before you pick up that first weapon - the crowbar. Immediately after obtaining it, Gordon faces a headcrab himself, and has to decide if he will eliminate it to enact revenge.
This establishes the character’s objective through gameplay, and it explains his motives throughout the rest of the series: Gordon wants to return the aliens to their home world, and he will do whatever he can to achieve that goal.
he does not have a personality and he does not have objectives, you have. He is just an avatar and it would be a lie to say that he is a good character. Whether he is or not does not matter because it isn't the main focus of Half-Life.
You say revenge I say the player is acting in self defense
I could argue that while you are playing, you are ccrafting a story. Your own story. And that is unique abot videogames. There will always be stories in videogames. Not all of them are told through traditional storytelling, though
About "Last of Us"; I actually didn't experience any disunity of want or purpose at the end. I have a daughter who was close (enough) to Ellie's age, and part of the "feel" of the relationship resonated with me. I would have curb stumped every single living creature in that building to get her out, and fuck the world.
Just to say, that personal life experience goes a long way toward determining the difference between unity or disunity.
One of the best talks out of the 40 or so I have seen
>Creating strong characters
>Narrative lead on the tryhard, "look MILLENNIALS we're HECKIN RELATABLE" Saint's Row reboot
Take this man's advice with a grain of salt.
I'd actually say his talk shows why people should be more open minded about the new Saints Row Reboot. So much of what he talks about can be seen with what they are doing and how they are likely to handle things.
The bit about Walter White as a character and the subject of contrast was a big one (especially since Breaking Bad is a clear inspiration for the game)
"one of the things that makes characters really interesting is when you have maximum contrast between their characterization and the actions that they take"
With Walter White that contrast is how he starts as a meek chemistry teacher and goes on to become a drug kingpin. Likewise there is a similar contrast at work with the characters introduced for the new Saints Row reboot and their eventual goal of forming a criminal empire. The contrast is what will make them interesting characters because it allows for more of a journey as they have to grow and evolve to become the new Saints rather than starting already custom made for it. If they already fit the roles like a glove then there's far less room for them to grow and develop over the course of the story because they would already be most of the way there. But in this case they aren't there yet and that's the idea, just like Walter White as a chemistry teacher wasn't yet at the point of being a drug kingpin. He had to go through various events, set backs, difficulties, and character growth to get there just like the new characters likely will on their way to becoming "Saints" in the new game.
Also on the subject of unifying character purpose. The new crew want to grow into a criminal empire, likewise fans will want them to grow as well so that they can become the characters people want the Saints to be. Players want the Saints and therefore have a vested interest in these characters growing into people who can properly fill that role.
Unification of action, the characters will work to build up a gang and eventually a criminal empire and that's exactly again what players will want to do as well. People have been clamoring for a return to some of the gang concepts of early titles and not only are we getting that but we get to watch it get built up from complete scratch all the way to a criminal empire.
The importance of characters having to have obstacles between the character and the objective. Meaning this new crew will inevitably face numerous obstacles and hardships in order to get what they want which in turn forces the aforementioned character growth to change them from nobodies to Saints.
He very clearly knows what he's talking about and the fact that what's going on with the new game fits so well with the concepts in this talk just shows that he and Volition aren't just making this up as they go or doing it on a whim. They have a plan for how it needs to be handled to make it work even if that's not immediately obvious with where it begins.
Me at the start of the video:
"Well shoot, I guess I chose the wrong video to listen to in the car."
*shortly after*
"Ah there we go!"
why does it take 4 years to upload these talks?
Mackie Messer They are so damn good!
I didn't know about any of this. GDC is bad at advertising, and I want GDCVault now
15:55 - he solves physic-based puzzles mostly. He's a PHD, after all.
so epic thanks for sharing this invaluable knowledge
This is what I needed
Thank you!
he has outstanding talking skills, though his definitions, overcimplifications and classifications makes my face sour. it all began with dividing games on linear and snadbox (oh man), etc. though i understand why he does that. but there are takeaways, expecially the things he talks about in the end. good talk.
I think gordon freeman is the perfect example of a immersive character because of all the micro decisions that gordon can do. For example you can run to the test chamber or you walk around and explode peoples lunches and bother people with their experiments. Another example you can shoot every guard and scientist or save everyone thus giving players a personal representation of gordons characters in their universe.
oh this helped me realize what's bothering me with Death Stranding. I've been playing for ~3h so far and I feel like the game keeps alternating between addressing me as if I'm either sam the character or me the character. on one hand I'm experienced delivery guy that seems to share history with people in Bridge organisation (Sam Proter, an established character I the player commandeer) and then it will switch and address me as if I'm an outsider who doesn't know anything about how stuff works around here (me, the player, interacting with the world through my avatar).
I don't mind the meta hints and explanations in form of on-screen text, but the fully voiced, in character dialogues explaining to Sam who his mother is w/o any clear in-world reason do bother me.
Love this lecture
I'm fine with not having a good story, rather than having someone have a half-story. Hollow characters, predictable plot, painful to watch love story, with blatant fan service. I can't.
I kind of prefer characters who "need" things, more than want them, but I guess that's the same thing.
A blank canvas at least offers the possibilities...
Interesting thought... One can make someone need something, but to want something is his decision. So I guess a game attempting to make someone want something has to establish the need and then the player and character wanting it are automatically on the same page, while establishing that a character wants something forces to player to just follow him.
Herr Schmidt empty characters are rough. Bella from twilight is an empty character. She has brown hair, has divorced parents, is "pretty", and her biggest personal concern is that she's too fat. That is all that exists about her back story, and that exists about her appearance. Anyone who doesn't relate to that at all doesn't insert themselves into her character, they just see her as a disposable background character whose best purpose is as vampire food.
It's the same with the emotionless white males with brown hair and husky quiet voices especially if its like it was in Watchdogs 1 where it's a emotionless white male with brown hair who is also a a middle aged programmer.
Your voice reminds me of Josh Tenenbaum and it’s blowing my mind
Brilliant talk. Thank you!
Fantastic thank you 🙏
man I liked gone home. But sorry I'm pretty sure I am human even though I didn't have the emotional breakdown he seemingly expect everyone to have
one of the best talks ever!
Amazingly entertaining talk
great talk!
That talk was fire from start to finish. And very well structured. One of the best ones I have seen so far
I think that the answer to The question is slightly different. Character is not gameplay so much as gameplay is the player. When we play, the gameplay we experience is OUR actions and our choices. This is why they are so engaging to us as participants. The actual character is the person the designers construct. This is part of where the conflict of bad game design occurs, as the gameplay we experience conflicts with the person we are shown on screen. This is where the Ludonarrative dissonance argument begins, and though we may not all agree on the perpetrators I think we all agree it happens. This is where I think the bulk of these issues occur, as our gameplay, our spirit of action that we the player embody grinds against the character we are presented with in unlikable ways.
But they design the gameplay to fit the char, like if ur playin' Barbie's dream house, and they added a gameplay mechanic where she wield's a torch, n' start's lightin' asses on fire, that's a gameplay reflection on HER. Doesn't matter wat U do, just the fact that it's there shows that Character -> gameplay. Not to mention if u add Bazooka's, Medieval Sword's, n'' Ninja Dagger's - 2 her arsenal. -',`x'D"
But that's not what she's doing, that's what you're making her do. She has the torch, but I choose how and what she does with it, but often we see in games that what we do with the character is not what they are necessarily assumed to be doing and that their actions are more diverse when they are disconnected from us. This is often visible in cutscenes, where our characters end up having not only more diverse reactions compared to what we can express and that their feelings on a situation can be not only different from ours but dichotomously opposed. This is how games can create ludonarrative dissonance, as you get the Nathan Drake scenario where Nathan Drake is somehow dropping pithy one liners after killing a small village of people and seem like a sociopath. Man, I want to go into this more but I am not very verbose coming off of spring break with little sleep XD.
Careful violation of unity of purpose can be incredible. Spoilers: Universal Paperclips starts out unified enough: make number go up. But I actually have any interest in myself or anyone else tiling the universe with paperclips, and getting out of my head and adopting - for this fictional experience - such an alien purpose was a fascinating experience, particularly when you're then confronted with the question of just what that purpose means when you encounter the drifters.
Tetris Attack on SNES has characters with a storyline! :) It's my favorite Tetris game.
this was a great talk!
He looks just like the guy in his first picture :D
Genius talk 🙏
30:46 "Unity of trait is kind of not that important" I mean... yes it is? he's speaking for himself there. I am sick and tired of not being able to be myself in games, to the point where I've passed over or refunded games that lacked avatar creation or forced a voice and characterization on me. I think unity of trait is maybe the MOST important of the three.
32:25 "You don't need to make me BE your character, you just need to make me want to WORK with them." This is the exact opposite of how it should be -- games exist in order to let the player BE the avatar, and you need to have *NPCs* they want to work with.
I was hoping this talk would be about creating memorable characters for the player to INTERACT with, not about new and exciting ways to force characterization on players instead of letting them be themselves.
Very interesting talk
11:11
15:30
20:00
23:40
34:45
Gone Home is really overrated by some people. The speaker hyperbole about it after complaining that people like Gordon Freeman or saying that early Link is just an avatar really takes a lot of credibility for me. Like if what characters do doesn't define in some way the avatar you are using. Exploring, trying to save others, not flinching facing danger, using smarts, etc also defines avatar into characters.
If Half Life were about a Physicist trying to escape the facility by sneaking and solving puzzles. Gordon Freeman will be a whole new characters, way less heroic but still valid character, a more selfish and less brave character.
OH! I bet this guy wrote the leverage episode where Partman took the lead on a grift, and he turned it into an immersive con to scam some bad billionaires. but near the end, their immersion was broken. it caught me by surprise that it seemed whoever wrote that episode had to be somewhat versed in game design to come up with that whole episode concept. now i know why lmao
Funny using Uncharted 2 as an example, I really didn't align with the character in want, thought or traits. Guess that's part of why I never finished it. Ended up more focused on the writing, scripting and level design. Interesting but not really immersive.
This is great
good man, good talk, good advice
It's funny how he pretends that "half" the audience of Metroid wouldn't have Unity of Trait with Samus because of the reveal that she's female. Yeah, that was a title on the NES that came out in 1987. The players were 99% preadolescent boys.
Instant Classic!
GDC I looked up "Jeremy Bernstein" on youtube & just see this old guy? sure its the right spelling?
Extremely useful info. Thanks a ton for this
As if this talk needed more credential: This is how Sorkin approaches story as well.
He explains so well why a lot of people don't like TLOU2
I much prefer a silent protagonist no matter what this guy thinks. I can put whatever I want into his/her words when dealing with NPC's, could be grunts and nothing but grunts(My first Gordon sounded like an ape), sarcasm, wildly off topic rants followed by back to topic just before hitting the choice, or full on robotic down to business and only business. I the player headcanon the character and the character always matches the gameplay I choose to do. The character never ever says something that is out of character for the gameplay I am doing. Every voiced character I have played has said something completely different than how the character was played, every single one of them. Then you add dialogue choices... and do they match what was written and what was said and in the tone the player expected? Very rarely.
No matter what you cannot ever program every instance of what every human playing the game can create in their own head for dialogue. That is an impossible task. You can program the game to allow for every instance of what every human playing the game can create in their own head for dialogue by not adding dialogue to the protagonist... And that includes NPC reactions not matching the few words in the choice.
What if you played as a villain? Hatred and manhunt are quite popular and youre like ridiculously evil
Ubisoft and Activision games are popular too. You need to tell what you are talking about. The challenge of the game or the story? I dont think that much people would FINISH hatred just for the story. Also manhunt isnt popular because its a game, its because word of mouth "hey man, you know this game which you strangle people using a bag?", it gets bigger and bigger and people who play the game plays it for a 30 minute and get bored. You call that popular, or ''popular''?
This guy is basically forcing gone home in all space he could see
17:50 R.I.P., a good joke
The only problem I have with this talk is how he sounds like he under water and there is this weird demon echo.
7:00 8:00
Doesn't the speaker contradicts himself when he says that a bad character is the one who is told to do something, but then if you return to his first slide where he lists types of protagonists, you realize that all of the protagonists in all of the listed games are told to do things.
BioWare games, Bethesda games, pretty much everything that isn't a sandbox game, characters get bossed around to do something for someone.
In Witcher games Geralt also follows orders, in KotOR 1 and 2, in Fallout games. Yes, some of these games don't have meaningful and impactful outcomes whatsoever, because those particular games are written with an illusion of choice, therefore nothing you decide matters, in other games you do have some amount of freedom but the end is the same - you get told to choose from a preset number of options.
So, I don't know, his definition of good/bad character is wrong. Maybe he confused it with player/character agency, and even then, that hardly matters in a linearly narrative games.
You're kind of taking what he is saying a little too literally and missing the point that is being made with the statement. When he says that it's a problem for characters to do what they are told that isn't a overarching statement that applies to every single iteration of a character being told something. You have to note the context of the rest of the talk alongside it. To give an example look at Gordon Freeman vs Geralt.
Gordon Freeman has no real personality. He gets told what to do, and he does it. No context from him, no real involvement from him. As Bernstein mentions towards the start he's basically an avatar. He may have a face and some background details but we aren't given any real context of what Gordon wants, why Gordon is doing this, what Gordon thinks about what's happening. He's a blank canvas for the player to take control of which while I wouldn't say that's automatically a bad thing it does make him fairly weak in terms of being an actual character.
Now compare that to Geralt. Yes Geralt often does things he is told but there's context behind that. He takes jobs because he's a witcher and that's his career (also because he wants money), he does what he is told because it will help him achieve his own desires, he takes orders because it is to help a friend. And beyond that simple act of doing the action we also get all sorts of other context of Geralt's thoughts and involvement in regards to what he's doing through his dialogue and response to what is happening around him. As a more specific example at the beginning of Witcher 3 you have the Gryphon hunt. Geralt and Vesemir openly state that they wouldn't do it for free Geralt only takes on the job because he then finds out that doing so could lead to information on Yennefer. So while he is doing something he is being told to do there is character motivation and context backing it up. Beyond this as he goes through the quest we get opportunities to explore his thoughts on the matter such as his dialogue with the Nilfgardian commander over how he's handling their control of the territory. Geralt isn't just an avatar, he's not just mindlessly doing the task with context or comment. He's an actual character who has his own thoughts, opinions, and motivations which is the key difference and that is the point Bernstein is making overall.
It's not purely just a case of doing what they are told = bad, That point is in combination with the rest of the discussion regarding the difference between a character and an avatar.
@@CeliriaRose Hello:)
Dammit, I was writing a well-structured comment, about 7000 character long, and then I pressed some combination of keys on my keyboard and it disappeared. The worst thing is, I hardly remember or care enough to write it again, or to even make a better version of it, so I'll just say this: you are correct, but I was talking about how characters are essentially led to an ending, doesn't matter whether they serve as a function (Gordon) or they're an actual person (Geralt). The difference between Gordon and Geralt is that Geralt's rationale falls under grand narrative and the story of the game, which makes it a good dramatic peice to observe and participate in, while Gordon simply observes and reacts in order to progress through the rest of the game by observing more of the story (this is Call Of Duty 101).
@@phlegios I mean you aren't technically wrong but given the talk is expressly about character writing it's reasonable for it to take a stance more in that direction than the idea of the mostly blank observer type of protagonist. If it was a more broad talk just about making a good game protagonist there would be more room for debate but in regards specifically to strong character writing an in depth character like Geralt is obviously going to be the clear winner simply due to the fact that silent protagonists are weakly written characters by design (because they aren't supposed to really be characters beyond a basic context to justify their existance within the story). So in regards to your original comment he's not contradicting himself because the talk is specifically on the subject of strongly written characters as opposed to simply being a good protagonist.
Also I would add a side note that good characters aren't necessarily lead to an ending. Ideally in character writing you want it to feel like the characters were the ones creating their own path. They make their own decisions, they have their own will. The player will inevitably end up being lead but it's a matter of whether it's the NPCs or the protagonist who does the leading.
@@CeliriaRose Maybe you're right in that he didn't say anything contradictory. I haven't watched this vid since the first time 6 months ago, and really now isn't the time to rewatch it, so I'll just agree with you on that one. Also, could you note (although there's no need, just curious) any games where the protagonist moves the story forward instead of NPCs doing the job for them? Maybe we could argue over that topic :)
@@phlegios Witcher 3 as mentioned is primarily driven by Geralt primarily in regards to him trying to save/help Ciri (though towards the end Ciri takes some control to fit the theme of the story). The Uncharted games are generally driven forward by Nathan Drake with him pursuing the treasure and seeking out clues. Red Dead Redemption 2 has a mix where early on Arthur starts more subservient to other characters but gradually shifts to being more in control of what he does later on. Now that I think about it Rockstar tends to like that kind of style of a character being pushed around until eventually breaking free as other games like GTA V and Max Payne 3 follow a similar style. Speaking of Max Payne 1 was also driven by it's titular character (though most revenge based stories kind of naturally lend towards that). It's actually a bit tough to come up with a lot as many games tend to like to lean towards either more simple blank protagonists that won't get in the way or fully player driven.
I think I'm not fully human 7:21
that's a shame.
being human is actually kinda cool, you should try it sometimes
I didn't like Gone Home tbh
Very good talk but I think he didn't understand the point of Dead Space. The break in Unity of Purpose is part of the storytelling in that case. It's one of those "know the rules so you can break them masterfully" things in storytelling. Isaac was clearly being manipulated to do something stupid, and you, as a player who is not being controlled, knows this. But Isaac can't know because he is being mind-whammied. It's dramatic irony and IMO a very good story beat for a game. Same thing happens in TLOU2, although I'm not a fan of that game.
The Uncharted opening makes the character less likable to me. He's talking to himself. That's just weird. Perhaps you could call it a break in unity of action. It's not even necessary exposition.
I'm also apathetic to the generic dilemma he's thrust into. I guess I wouldn't like the actual game ;P
Haha, as someone with ADHD noticing him talking to himself made me empathize with him more lmao.
I guess its all in perspective
You don't talk to yourself?
Pfft. Not the Dwarven part.
this is genius. 'xd',-xdfp'"
Aw-fucking-esome talk!! I think GTA 4 it's a perfect example of ludo narrative disonance, Niko it's very traumatized because of the horrible things he had to do during war. But then the game gives you green lights to commit murder and rob cars. I think it's a great character but maybe the "gamey" implementation wasn't right
There is a reason why people say pack man is a character 6:42 Mechanics are also the story, they are not two easily separable things. 9:57 there are games without stated objectives in which the objective is the game play. This definition is formulaic, and it forgets about the number of stories that end without wants achieved or obstacles overcome in all sorts of mediums. It would be much more accurate to say that the definition of story is character and that the definition of character is story. 17:10 but all that stuff is character, and all of that stuff is story. It is totally how people are defined and not just how you might describe them. peoples wants are a part of their circumstances, its not just "within", our wants are us in more complicated ways.
This approach to formalizing stories just breaks things down into these separate definitions for things that really can't be separated if they are to be actually understood. Most people who have really tried to peruse good writing or art or games will tell you that fundamentally there is no formula or recipes for it. We all still need to use definitions to communicate and describe things, but those things are never discrete definitions. What things like character, story, etc are, can only really be defined by what they all are together.
OMG
I know now what went wrong with Star Wars!!!
The real story is ALWAYS about the character.
And a character is made by one simpel rule: "A person who want something, badly"
What do the original characters in Star Wars ep 4,5,6 want so badly?
What do any characters want so badly in ep8 and after?
Ep 4,5,6 Luke want badly to: Know his father, know the force, save the princess, save his friends, become a jedi master
Ep 8 Luke want badly to: Drink milk, say goodbye to Leia?
Try that to all the characters in all ep. and you found that even Darth Mall is a strong character that want something badly.
Sorry, hate to break it to you. But you didn't seem to get it at all then.
The latest movies didnt just lack strong written characters.
It lacked plot as a whole seeing as it just redid the same story with the same kind of characters. (father son, turning evil turning good, killing baddie)
It was very inconsistent and lacked continuity. The new sabers still feel weird to me, the protagonist being strong with the force not needing any training felt very off since it was nothing like how it was with anakin)
There were no force powers in most of the fights despite her being strong with the force and not needing any training. So it also lacked fitting star wars like fight choreography.
You bring up Darth Maul, which has an excellent fight / duel sequence that people love to refer to to this day..
But the Fight Choreography in the latest movies is just so incredibly bad, that every time you go and watch the new films, you are left thinking why the heroes won a particular fight with all these clunky moves they put out.
@@somethingsomething7507 In the case of the topic this Ted Talk is about. I see why the new Star Wars went wrong with their Characters.
In the case of everything else as you mention? You are right, it was not only the Characters that went wrong. Everything went wrong.
Not even have Darth Maul some great moves, but he also has a stronger will and therefore is a stronger character than Ray. According to this Ted Talk.
Yes, as is (almost) always the case. There are pretty simple rules about how to build a theme, story, characters, story arcs etc. and there is an incredible amount of movies that just don't do it. It's also why I defend episode 1 - it has that. It is poorly shot, it has bad lines, etc. but everyone has some motivation, some goals, plot has a reason, etc.
well this just prompted me to replay Half-life 2 lol
"People who have an unity of traits but don't share the same purpose will also not achieve unity of action, thus become enemies."
Holy shit you just summoned up all of my disfuncional relationships in one sentence. Mind blown! 🤯
Now I am convinced that a great game designer needs to be a knowledgeable psychologist first...
Unity of action...
So that's why I hate TLoU's ending
TLoU's ending is AWESOME
@Caleb Geizer there's a journal you can find that says they tried it multiple times and made zero progress on a cure
@@LieseFury That is considering you did find it.. And read it..
I never read codex's in games. You want me to understand your world, either show it to me or explain it as I go along through a more immersive approach rather than a wall of text.
This can be an npc giving pieces of information, this can be through a clue finding thing that you see in many other rpgs and Gone Home
I hate TLoU 2
I still prefer silent protagonist lol
I don't think that every character needs to want something. Not everyone is going to be driven to some dire goal all the time. We tell stories about characters who want things, because that's a key part of the idea of adventure, but the random merchant isn't necessarily on an adventure. The merchant is just going through his daily grind.
He wants your gold! He wants a successful business. Not everyone wants to slay dragons, but every character has a want.
I know this reply is a year late, but whatever. Just by looking at the characters and game examples he gives it's clear to see he means all major characters. So he is saying this principal should always apply to your main character, the antagonist, companions and yes it should also always apply to any major named npc like a quest giver or someone of importance like a landlord, family member, mentor, etc as well.
And I 100% agree with this.
So to clarify, a merchant the player talks to whose only purpose in your game is to influence the player's gold or inventory space obviously does not apply to this concept. That just wouldn't be very practical.
Ofcourse, this does not mean a merchant cant be an npc that gets introduced, dreams of opening up a shop somewhere and later in your game opens up that shop whether it be through timetravelling mechanics, or having the player helping them out in the form of giving away their gold.
The important take away is that by giving a character a want, you have added a layer to these characters that allow the player to be more immersed into your world.
Again, it does and should not apply to all characters, but if you want a stronger represented character in your world, this is how you do it.
Merchants are also not the people you go to for character development and the like, they are here on both levels here to buy and sell stuff, in most games the fact that they don't go beyond that doesn't matter to the players
1:04 If you pick up a Controller and think there is something wrong with Half-Life - it's definetly on you! Playing with a Controller...
Awesome 👏
Isn't Chell from Portal 2 confirmed to have brain damage though which causes her mute-ness?
After the fact, you could blow gazillion theories. But truth is most of good things are the way they are is because someone fiddled with idea, and decided it's cool and left it. Nobody has 12-hour meetings on what color characters hair should be, anywhere, ever. (Except for Valve, perhaps. They love circlejerking around theories so that's why HL3 will never get done.)
Those talks are funny
While there is some truth to "let it go at some point" , "cool" is not a metric. Composition and Design is a deep topic and when properly applied, separates the emotionally working games from the ones that don't. Just like with paintings. Yes, it is absolutely worth it to dabble hours or days establishing proper use of color theory for your game. It is not something arbritrary or spontanious. At least not entirely. It requires a lot of knowledge and iteration, or "fiddling".
So he has a big problem with people liking Gordon Freeman, but can't figure out how to play dragon's age without ramping his roleplay slider all the way to 11? I got halfway through the talk and saw zero evidence that this guy has any idea about what a good character is.
this guy has a very pretentious manner of speech
Lords Mobile, no emotions at all. 600M a year in revenues.. c'mon
Doesn't make it good, and that's one which, from what I can see, is a F2P, whale-based income stream
If only Neil Druckman has seen this talk...
Can we just agree that "Gone Home" is NOT a game, but a story, a beautiful interactive short story. One like those you can find in a book?
why can't it,.game?'"
All movies, books and games with stories are just stories. Just using different methods to tell those stories.
In swedish we have two words that separate game into two categories. First one is "spel", it's something like chess. And then there's "lek" which is things like "house". You can't win at "hourse" or "fireman" but you can win at "spel". I think Gone home might have more in common with playing "house" than it does with chess.
"Can we just agree that "Gone Home" is NOT a game" No. We can't.
no
Are technical manuals for science fiction stories games? Is the Incredible Cross Sections a game? If no, than neither is Dear Esther or Gone home. They are loosley structured information with no challange or goal.
i didnt think this talk was very good
This hurts to watch, especially his definition of a story. Who let this guy on stage.
Are technical manuals for science fiction stories games? Is the Incredible Cross Sections a game? If no, than neither is Dear Esther or Gone home. They are loosley structured information with no challange or goal.