Great article. I would like to add that I think one area where games do a decent job is in creating a "back story". Even games that have been criticized for their poor storytelling often do a credible job of creating an interesting, vibrant world.

Left4Dead is one example, and Gears of War would be another. While the story in the first Gears was about as thin as one could imagine, they did create a compelling world with references to the characters backgrounds and the world's history - enough so that two decent novels could be written in the Gears universe.

I think the gaming medium lends itself more to strong characters and back stories, rather than strong story telling itself, since only the most linear of games can actually conform to the standard story-telling mechanics we have become accustomed to from non-interactive mediums (novels, plays, movies, etc.).

Left 4 Dead is a prime example of this, Chris. The characters live and breathe, and are essentially movie actors in film after film (stage after stage). The reason, besides how fun it is to kill zombies, the game is so compelling is the characters. Well-defined characters with consistent personalities. The grumpy old guy with military background, the young urban professional, the biker guy with a shotgun, and the tough as nails but soft at heart female. All cliche, yes, but all consistently drawn across the games. No cut scenes of character development, no long flashback to explain their motivation. Just them, wisecracking and talking to each other, throughout the whole horrifying game. Brilliant design - no plot.

Thanks for the article, Chris, I loved it.

Heh, I find it funny that Jackie Brown is mentioned here, as it's now the one Tarantino film I've yet to see now. I suppose Reservoir Dogs being my favorite of the ones I've seen so far goes to help your point that the plots themselves just aren't as important. The fact that the heist was totally removed was just the best part of the movie. A bunch of good characters running around will always serve as a sort of narrative centrifugal force for the audience.

Moving away from that however, doesn't it take a standard?

If so --- should we raise them, lower them, or as you imply, sidestep them for the time being? I think it’s fair to say that games aren’t the guiltiest of the bunch when letting their plots go a tad --- awry. However, taking that a bit further --- when held against their peers, games still remain fairly young (trite but true, I know). They’ve been imprinted from movies, television, and various other faucets of nerd culture since their conception. Their defining trait remains something we glorify to the most insulting levels as well, and lost in that ocean of ‘interactivity’, we stringently tie that filter to games as too. This deeply affects how games utilize their own characterization --- which I’d go as far to say, is just on par with the stories they tend to tell.

Not that I particularly disagree with your sentiments on someone like Alyx, but if you step back to really analyze what makes her special, what exactly is that?

[I’m genuinely asking too; perhaps you’ve posted your thoughts on that somewhere? I’m curious.]

Either way, I’m more willing to tolerate ‘spaghetti being thrown at the wall’ than I am with extracting/exahalting/fine-tuning the characters themselves. Most of the special ones --- mine anyway, are contingent on surrounding factors which the world and silly narratives nurture anyway.

Also, how many periphery characters gather such lauding? There’s still a lot to be said for how the player’s own avatar is meant to mesh with whom they’re controlling (as opposed to their supporting ‘cast’). I’ve seen the only solution around in various interviews that would inspire hope in me and that is the degree and integration writers have in the process. People are responding to (a rather deserved) craving for literary craft, not just the technical accomplishments video games represent by default.

Perhaps your suggestion will be something proven valid, I just don’t want to see video games organically formulating their own sense of narratives (and characters) compromised.

~sLs~

In my opinion you can look to Chronicles of Riddick: Assualt on Dark Athena for the best-acted and directed characters in a game. I wanted to smash Jaylor's face in so much that I pulled a gun on him in the fist fight. He asked for it.

Characters really are crucial, as is the engagement we feel with any character that we play as. Gordon Freeman is caught in an interstellar clash and then has to deal with military silencing. Difficult not to react to that. Similarly, a character like Fontane in BioShock is quite powerful because the evidence of his intentions is all around you: he's not just some synthetic response to the player's condition, as mentioned earlier.

I'm a big fan of the first Mafia game, and can't wait for the second. Reason being, I completely understood the scenario Tommy Angello found himself in, first detesting, then condoning, crime. His predicament made me want to see where he could go, and his fellow characters all had different agendas, which you witnessed first hand. Niko Bellic, however, is too distant a character: we can't relate to his major traumas, because they happened at another time. To me, witnessing characters in a film will never be as engaging as interacting with them in-game, not even if they're as well written as Quentin Tarantino's frequently are, because we're still just watching them. We need to be able to influence them, enforce our personal agendas on them. It's something that games really need, and something that only they can give us.

It's an interesting idea... Videogames are just as guilty of doing dumb characters as they are of doing dumb plots, though - maybe precisely because they're seen as an extra, or maybe because they're about market-focussing as opposed to good design. In any case, whether it's gruff, surly cyphers, spikey-haired protagonists, or space marines, they're just as common as 'only you can save the world' interactive-movie yawn-fests. Perhaps if the same effort were put into interesting plotting as into deeper characterisation, there could be two strands of better storytelling?

Also, some of the best characters are the blank ones - Gordon Freeman, for example. Never speaks, never see him, simply see through him. So the gameplay develops the character, rather than vice-versa, which is a very immersive method. No cut scenes, but still plotted well enough to avoid the lazy cop out of 'emergent gameplay' (i.e. mistake 'something happened' for a 'story'). In fact, since the introduction of voice acting there's almost a greater divide between player and character every time you experience their voice - another difference between movies and games

I'm all for a way of moving videogame stories beyond their constant desire to be movies. And better characters do improve terrible narratives. Take Uncharted 2 - the plot's pure hokum, but it's enjoyable and motivates the player because of the character - even if the character stands out simply because he's a less common kind of cliche at present. It's a shame it's so rare, though, and a great example of characters and acting making traditional structures feel fresh.

Now to watch the slides...