Why Traditional "Character Building" Won't/Doesn't Work in R6 | Forums

[KungFu_CIA]

The Short Answer:

R6 is a first person shooter video game where time constraints are usually too short to build effective characterization(s) you find in movies, novels, TV and other forms of fiction.


The Long Explanation:

What is Effective Character Building?

Effective Character Building (characterization) of central and/or secondary characters consists of both past events (backstory) and on-going character arcs which can be demonstrated through various visual and dialogue cues which should organically come out of the situations the characters are put in as the story progresses.

Example of effective characterization:

A) Character Level:

In "Die Hard" (1988) when officers Al Powell (Reginald Val Johnson) and John McClane (Bruce Willis) have a heart-to-heart over the radio and Al tells him the reason he doesn't carry a gun on patrol anymore is because he shot a kid who pointed a toy gun at him. Al's guilt about the past has influenced and keeps influencing his actions/decisions right up until we and John meet him.

Add the fact Al is thrown into one of the most violent situations a first responder can be put in -- A hostage situation with confirmed casualties -- Is also organic to his struggle (arc) and furthers his apprehension to use a weapon unless absolutely necessary... Which he is finally forced to at the end to save John and Holly's (McClane's wife) lives at the very last moment.

B) Story Level:

In the future, Aeon Flux (Charleze Theron) is hired to kill malevolent ruler Trevor Goodchild (Marton Csokas) and free the people of Bregna... Only to find out she was Goodchild's wife in a former life and that Goodchild isn't the malevolent ruler he is portrayed as.

The effective characterization in this story stems from subtle cues -- Visions and fractured memories Aeon experiences -- Such as flashbacks to the present where it is gradually explained Aeon, Goodchild and the rest of the citizens of Bregna are in fact clones of the last surviving population of Earth, and have now found a way to live "naturally" without the aid of the current government which depends on its citizens not knowing they are clones and discovering they no longer need the goverment's "assistance" anymore.

The characterization at this level is the fact it explains why one of the best assassins the world has ever seen can't seem to kill the most malevolent ruler the world has ever known.

It encompasses both the character and story levels of character building and character arcs at the same time. Like the Die Hard example, everything up until the present has and keeps influencing Aeon's and the rest of the character's decisions up until we meet them and find out this truth along with Aeon and everyone else.


Now, what is the main thing both of these examples have that a video game does not?

The more effective use of time and SUBTLE storytelling and character building techniques which gradually form a complete picture of why the characters do what they do (and why) for the viewer at the end of that period of time.

Contrast this to most video games whose "time" is not set (fixed) since it may vary depending on how the player plays the game and is often not a factor with regard to the MP portion of the game at all.

....

The reason I felt compelled to even post this was because I have been playing real story-based and character-driven games lately, "Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, and "Dreamfall: The Longest Journey II", and these games are the true essence of what effective and real "characterization" is and it just will not fit into a game like R6 in my opinion given the nature of R6 and what it is at its core: A first person shooter.

I say this as an R6 fan, a gamer and a former screenwriter as well because...

The press releases (1UP interview with Kimi; EMG article) surrounding R6:5 state things like the devs are trying to give "characterization" to the AI team mates by having one of them "dart his weapon from side to side when breaching" while another one is more of a "heavy-handed type of stance".

The above is NOT characterization. It is just visual differences between the team mates style and tells us absolutely nothing about WHY their styles are different.

The same kind of logic was applied to Lockdown.

Having Renee Raymond yell, "Chavez! Get your *** over here!" is not characterization just as having Louis Loiselle say, "Oui" before every sentence tells us nothing about who he is other than the very superficial (and obvious) trait that he is French.

[Woosy]

I have been thinking about this and what you have said Kungfu, and I agree. I do have another idea though... What they did with Splinter Cell, I know I bring up Sam alot, but anyway.. they gave him a blog www.samfisherblog.com they employed someone to write it for ubisoft. I thought it was a great interaction, and gives the community an insight t who he is outside the field. To be honest, I hope they bring it back for SCDA, because not only is it fun to read but hes a laugh, it shows he has a human side.

Something like this for say the team leader Logan Keller of Rainbow Six would be cool, that way it doesn't interfer with the game at all. And those who don't want to read it don't have to read it unlike in-game where it would be forced.

[KungFu_CIA]

Woosy

That is interesting what they are doing with Sam Fisher.

In fact, a lot of TV shows now employ this kind of "marketing" where they have fictional blogs and other media which is supposed to expand the "reality" of the show outside the TV each week.

To use a dated example, "Dawson's Creek" had Dawson's Desktop which was the character's own fictional desktop which fans could access and read his "e-mail", homework assignments and other things pertinent to his character to gain insight to the events on the show, both past and forthcoming.

Smallville (WB) is currently doing the same thing for Lex Luther and Luthor Corporation in thier hunt for Professor Fine (Brainiac).

.....

The bigger issue, however, is that UBI is doing what a lot of amatuer writers do in that they are substituting physical character traits for characterization and in the end this is going to lead nowhwere -- Because it essentially is nothing to begin with.

Let me repeat that:

UBI is doing what a lot of amatuer writers do in that they are substituting physical character traits for characterization, character arc and backstory.


I say this not to try and sound smarter than the devs or the writers who are doing the Vegas storyline, but the fact is that building effective characterization -- Real characterization that means something like we
are discussing -- Is not that easy and if the writers aren't trained in this area they WILL make mistakes like this that may go unoticeable by most gamers, but will stick out AFTER THE FACT when gamers start to think about their AI Team mates and what do they (gamers) really know about them in the end? This is where mistakes in executing a story rear their ugly heads -- After the story has been told and you (they) can't do anything about it unless it was brought to their attention ahead of time.

[Brettzies]

Interesting. Like was said, different game genres fit better with characterization and story. I think the Splinter Cell series works because Sam Fisher is just a strong character with a good voice to boot. Plus the whole game is very up and personal. You have to become him to relate to what you are tyring to accomplish. Not only that, but you are alone out there.

I'm not exactly sure what Ubi is trying to do with the "story" elements of these past and future games. A game like HL2 lends itself to more story and character driven game because, again, it's one guy against the world almost. Those type of FPS's are so different from R6 games to begin with. The way they are played is more about going through a gorgeous level and enjoying the scenery along the way while blowing everything up. R6 is or was, about the mission and tactics.

I think you can bring character into the game, but not the way they've been doing it. I think the best way to bring the player more "into" the game is to make them part of it. Even if they want to give you a generic name which can sound either male/female ala that StarTrek FPS. Chavez can lead the other team, if you so choose.

This is what I'd like to see, though I'm not holding my breath. A very low-level form of role playing. When the game starts or if your character dies, you create a operative, male or female, customize their look a bit, assign some combat points, and off you go. As the game progresses, you can earn medals, badges, etc, increase in skill some basic traits like leadership, stealth, weapon proficiecy. This should apply to all your teammates as well. GR1 had a very simple yet effective use of combat points and skill sets. It actually made leadership important because it gave all other team memebers a bonus.

In terms of story and character, they'd either give you the generic male/female name or just refer to you by rank or callsign, like in SWAT. For you team member's chatter, they need to tone that BS way down. Every now and then maybe they have a line of dialog that's mission critical, but the insane giddyness of the GR2 games has got to go.

Really though, when I start to speculate on what they are doing, this game "Vegas." One locale, one big mission. It just starts to sound more and more like your standard everyday garden variety FEAR, Quake, Half-Life, Doom game. I get the idea they are doing a very GR:AW like game, where you don't go on missions per say, you just kind of go through one long day or event. I haven't played GR:AW, but that's the impression I get from it as cool as both versions look.

My gut tells me that they aren't making a game, they're making a formula and that's where all this storytelling / character comes in. Maybe it will work, but I think it's dissappointing this "we have to be like Hollywood" mentality. They are games not movies. The best roleplaying games know how to balance this story to game ratio, and some even go overboard.

I laughed out loud when I read this: Emphasizes fun and the Hollywood movie experience. This in reference to GR2:Summit Strike, which is actually pretty fun. Much better mission briefings then GR2, but still you see where the "mentality" is. It does work for some games, just not the game we want.

[KungFu_CIA]

Originally posted by Brettzies:

My gut tells me that they aren't making a game, they're making a formula and that's where all this storytelling / character comes in. Maybe it will work, but I think it's dissappointing this "we have to be like Hollywood" mentality. They are games not movies. The best roleplaying games know how to balance this story to game ratio, and some even go overboard.

I think you hit the proverbial nail on the head.

It is no secret the games industry is more intent on making so-called interactive movies than games these days compared to the games of the late '90s and early millennia which had story elements, but were still games first and foremost such as Doom, Half-Life, Unreal, etc. The problem, however, is as you stated in they either go overboard in trying to cram a "cinematic" experience into a game where it doesn't work or isn't even needed... Or, they end up doing it horribly ala Lockdown where it comes off second-rate/hackneyed and ruins whatever gameplay there might be.

One thing I want to get out of the way is I want to qualify what I and others mean when we say, "Hollywood".

I don't think even R6 fans absolutely hate Hollywood per se. I (personally) don't have a problem watching something mindless like "Armageddon" or "Independence Day" because they are fun, big-budget movies whose sole purpose is to entertain. In addition, I love John Woo and Asian-Action movies which are even more over-the-top than most Western action films in terms of their action setpieces and gunplay. So, in my case, I don't hate Hollywood and don't pretend to, either.

What I think most people who say they "hate Hollywood" or the "Hollywood mentlaity" is they hate the B-Movie mentality and approach where things are over-the-top because there is no real plot, or characterization, aka no real story and these kinds of movies use explosions and car chases to hide that fact. I think THIS kind of movie and approach is what most gamers hate because there are so many more BAD movies like this than the good ones like "Independence Day" and "Mission Impossible"...

And it was this same, cliched over-the-top B-Movie approach which Lockdown used and was one reason it failed so miserably not just as an R6 game, but a game in general because even games like BF2 and Counter-Strike treat their subject material (war/combat) with more respect and realistic -- irony -- Portrayls.

I just wanted to clear this up because while I don't pretend to speak for everyone in the R6 community, I do think the "I hate Hollywood" mantra is often misused as a way to rally support for what we gamers want when it isn't so much Hollywood itself, but the BAD side of Hollywood (Steven Segal; Arnold Schwartzeneggar) that the games industry keeps drawing from, rather than the good (Black Hawk Down; Saving Private Rayn) in my opinion.

Getting back to the original topic...

Another reason I think they are so obssessed with making "interactive movies" is because of two main reasons:

1) Exposure.

Movies reach FAR more people than video games ever will. This is not a made up fact. This is statistical truth because a potential moviegoer does not have to be a potential gamer in order to be exposed (experience) a movie. A potential movie goer doesn't even have to go to the theater anymore and can use DVD, On-Demand PPV and other means to watch the product Hollywood is selling...

Unlike gamers who MUST buy the hardware (console or PC) and software to experience the games industry produces.

Reaching more people is the games industry's ultimtae goal because it (of course) translates into more profit.

Okay. Fine. I have no problem with this.

2) As mentioned in numerous threads before, if they perfect their "cinematic craft" -- if you can call it that -- They may be able to break into feature films using their proprietary game engines to make full CGI animated films like Pixar and Disney.

This is where this big push for games to be more like movies is really coming from even if you've never (or will ever) heard the CEO of UBI or EA Games come right out and say it. It all comes back to exposure and reaching as many people as possible because once again, movies are a much more accessible form of entertainment than games even though gaming is now a 100+ billion dollar industry across the board.

Someone even commented on another thread why doesn't the games industry come out and say this and/or just devote separate divisions to the film business instead of using games as guinea pigs to reach this goal?

Simple: Cost effectiveness.

Why create separate divisions who do just the game and then the movie based on the game (or vice versa) when they can do both at the same time? Their logic is if you spent five years developing a graphic and physics engine that can do cinema-quality presentations, why not use it for the CGI movie as well?

This is another factor as to why games are slowly being forced into becoming interactive movies more than games as technology progresses to the point where games and consumer hardware will eventually equal the quality of "The Incredibles" or "Ice Age".

The other part of the equation is most casual gamers who make up the majority of game sales (all platforms) relate to movies more as their primary source of entertainment. Especially, the younger generation who games are primarily aimed at. They relate to movies more than books and other forms of entertainment which is why they are trying to appeal to this segment by making games more like movies as well.

So, where does this leave us true gamers then?

I see a couple of solutions happening:

A) If the intent to make a game more of a cinematic experience is the overall goal from the start then game devs and publishers need to be up front about this WITH THEMSELVES and then hire the right people such as experienced, credited screenwriters and authors, Academy Award winning sound-mixers, professional well-known actors for voice work, etc.

In other words, don't try and make an A-List Hollywood production on a C-List independent movie budget which is what most games budgets amount to when comparing the two industries and products.

Games cost a lot, but the biggest chunk of money goes to R&D and then marketing which leaves very little for things such as writing, acting, sound design, etc. depending on the budget and the overall intent of the CEO and CFO.

B) Eventually, the games industry will finally hit a point where they CAN successfuly pull off a cinematic experience within games that don't necessarily warrant or need them.

This option isn't the preferred one, obviously, but it may be the only option true 'hardcore' gamers have other than to not play games by major publishers anymore, unfortunately.

[Woosy]

Some games can pull it off flawlessly, for example Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy, they are very well done for characterization and movie sequences in CGI. The transitions in-game in some parts from game to CGI is amazing. For something like Rainbow Six you can't insert it into the gameplay, there are areas you can do it, but you will only get the feeling their human not seperate them into individuals. Which characterization would do, ultimatly it will fail all the time to do full blown characterization. I've never wanted that, just make them feel somewhat human.

I think in that area it's losing appeal, there are alternatives like the blog which I find more interactive then any game. It does come down to story and great writers to pull off great characterization, but most of all it needs the correct game. It is impossible doing it in the gameplay in R6 as we found but outside the theatre of action is possible, they have to weigh up and compromise.

[Goliath.Ubi.Dev]

I have to completly disagree with you there KF, if FPS games were too short to create effcient character building we would have never had the icons that we have today like Duke Nukem, Master Chief, Sarge and countless others that anyone who has ever picked up a controller could tell you about.

Games last longer then Movies,we can even go further in developping characters.

[KungFu_CIA]

Originally posted by Goliath.Ubi.Dev:
I have to completly disagree with you there KF, if FPS games were too short to create effcient character building we would have never had the icons that we have today like Duke Nukem, Master Chief, Sarge and countless others that anyone who has ever picked up a controller could tell you about.

Games last longer then Movies,we can even go further in developping characters.

But what do we really KNOW about Master Chief, Duke and others?

This is the distiniction I think UBI is trying to fool people into thinking they are getting (or, presenting to them).

Effective characterization is exactly what I said. What games do is put you in the role of the main character like Duke or MC... But we don't know anything about them PRIOR to this point.

This is the main thing I think all game developers and those who write games NEED to start really thinking about because what it essentially comes off as in most games... Especially, FPS... Is a cheap "parlor trick" where the illusion of getting to know a character is presented, but not actually knowing anything about the character is achieved.

This is why I brought up games like "Dreamfall" and "Oblivion". The key to those games is the main character (the player) not only has a backstory, but so do the OTHER characters who inhabit the game world as well. Basically, they are not there to serve your story (character needs), you are there to serve THEIRS. This is one of those very distinct and subtle writing techniques that is very hard to pull off/execute effectively... Even by seasoned professionals... And this is with more traditional mediums like novels and film, let alone video games.

Also, please understand I am not claiming the writers who are doing Vegas (or other games) are unprofessional or inexperienced. All I am saying is I think the medium they are trying to write for is maybe not designed FOR these kinds of effective storytelling techniques just because they are games and not movies or novels.

As far as time constratints go...

Length is not the key.

The key is how effectively you use that time to convey convincing characterization.

For example, I could make a 14 hour movie about a Special Forces Team who just go from hot spot to hot spot taking down terrorists... But at the end, if I don't employ effective, time-tested storytelling techniques, aka character building, not only has the audience learned absolutely nothing about these men, but they probably won't care about them and whether they live or die...

Which is THE most important aspect -- having the player/audience have EMPATHY (not sympathy) for the characters -- And the real goal of what I *think* UBI is trying to bring to the R6 series via the team mate "quirks" they are supposedly bringing to Vegas...

But again, in my humble opinion, you have to go BEYOND just the visual cues and not substitute physical character traits for characterization and well fleshed out backstories. Can this be done in such a visually based medium as video games?

Yes. But it also heavily depends on the kind of game and the overall goal and focus of the game as well. This is where I think a lot of fans, myself included, are at odds with what we and UBI want R6 to become.

If you can effectively employ good storytelling and character buildin techniques that aren't cliches or shallow characitures that also isn't as blatant or in-your-face, then I don't think R6 fans (and game fans in general) would be as upset, but nine times out of 10 this isn't the case and we get "B-Movie" cliches and dialogue most of the time as substitutes for real characterization and character empathy.

[FI_FlimFlam]

Goliath, don't forget that is how those series started. With a stong character identity to begin with. One of the things I see wrong with the concept of this in the R6 games is that the games were how they were to begin with. The characters weren't as strong as your examples. Infact in R6 many people liked to identify to a small extent with certain team members and not Chavez. They had their favorites but it wasn't that they were heavily developed. What I see as the problem is that in changing the focus away from the traditional gameplay and mission setup you are changing the whole feel of the game rather than building on the foundation that was created by earlier titles. As I see it, the squad(s) is the "character" not individuals in this series.

[Brettzies]

Originally posted by Goliath.Ubi.Dev:
I have to completly disagree with you there KF, if FPS games were too short to create effcient character building we would have never had the icons that we have today like Duke Nukem, Master Chief, Sarge and countless others

I think you are right, but those FPSs along with the Splinter Cell(3rd person) games, are very different then what R6 use to be. Those games, like the most recent Lockdown, you are pretty much just worried about one character and going from point A to point B. It's so story dependent in Lockdown that if anyone "dies" they magically appear in a later level in order for the mission breifing to make sense.

I don't have a problem with Hollywood at all. My problem is when games try to be like Hollywood for no good reason other then the tag line. In many ways, games are better then Hollywood. Knights of the Old Republic is one of my favorite story based games of all time. Doom3 the game experience is waaay better then Doom the movie. Games are a lot like animation, you aren't limited by certain physical constraints and therefore have a freedom which cost movies millions of dollars to create.

Those games, like I stated earlier in this thread, are different. Their presentation is different. The way HL-2 tells its story is different. All those games are about going through levels, that's their design. Rainbow 6 use to be about planning(or using the plan), equiping your squad, and exectuting a mission. Not just running through a level shooting things until there's nothing left.

That doesn't mean there cannot be a strong story or even characters, but it seems like the game design is being dictated a bit by the one character, one event story concept, and traditional fps run through the level killing everything formula. Those games are fun, I do like them, but I think R6 was much much more then that.

This guy said it best:

Originally posted by FI_FlimFlam:
What I see as the problem is that in changing the focus away from the traditional gameplay and mission setup you are changing the whole feel of the game rather than building on the foundation that was created by earlier titles. As I see it, the squad(s) is the "character" not individuals in this series.