Companionship: Endearing vs Annoying

NO!  I'm not dead...but I have been very busy.  My attempts to keep two blogs, a job, school, and my personal work going, as well as finding time to unwind has been...difficult.  So, expect slower updates on this blog in the coming months, at least until I finish with my classes.  For now though, I do have a long update for people.  So, let's look into Companionship: Endearing vs Annoying.

            Something that a lot of developers seem to have trouble with is the idea of companionship in video games.  A lot of them want to make a deep, meaningful connection between two characters, so they tend to put them together so a bond can develop.  Problem.  Without another human brain, you run the risk of completely ruining this experience.  See, unless you or someone else can control another character, quite often they will become more of a burden than a friend or a lover or what have you.  The AI in video games, or even the circumstances surrounding another character, are often too weak to force that kind of bond.  So, that brings up a few interesting arguments on companionship.  How do you make a character endearing, when there isn't another human behind the steering wheel?  How do you avoid making them a burden or an annoyance?  Well, let's take a look at a few prominent games based around a system of companionship and see different approaches taken in the past, both good and bad.

Good game design and narrative can even make two silent robots endearing.

            Probably the most famous, and yet the most esoteric, companionship in past years has been Ico and Yorda from the game Ico.  Yorda is the very definition of what can be called a burden.  You die if she gets too far away from you, she can do nothing for herself, you literally have to hold her hand through most of the game, and she speaks very little.  Yet, people often cite Yorda as one of the great gaming companions of recent memory.  Why is this?  I tend to believe it is because of the circumstances.  You see, the world of Ico is bleak, lifeless, cold, and lonely.  Ico the character is hated by his fellow villagers and attacked by monsters within the castle.  Yet Yorda is not afraid of him.  She speaks very little, but does not abuse Ico, does not hate him, and is comfortable enough around him to let him guide her and to rest with him on a bench when saving the game.  Yorda seems like a burden, however the way the game is designed, burden or not, Yorda is all you've got.  Yorda is the one ray of light in the darkness.  Because of this, it feels almost like a fairytale, where a prince and a princess must escape an evil witch.  And all of this is conveyed through art and mechanics rather than through a lot of text or narrative.  Despite not having very good AI and being largely dependent on you, Yorda forms that meaningful bond of companionship by being the only hope you have for the future in a world that hates you.

The image of Ico and Yorda holding hands is immortal in gaming.  Two lost souls who depend on one another not just for puzzles or mechanics, but for the hope to keep going.

            Conversely, let's look at Resident Evil 4 and Ashley Graham.  Ashley is an attractive young woman in a cute sweater and a miniskirt.  She is often useful for puzzles and her death, like Yorda's, spells the end for you.  However, Ashley is looked upon in a far less kindly manner.  The circumstances surrounding Leon Kennedy, the main character in Resident Evil 4, are, arguably, far more hostile than in Ico, but a good deal less bleak.  Leon is taunted by his enemies, he is encouraged by allies and uncertain elements, he is frequently talked to and is far less feeble and helpless than Ico.  Leon is also far more well liked, as his allies care for him and his enemies even respect him somewhat.  In this situation, companionship is not something novel.  It is not a single ray of light in the darkness.  And because Ashley is not all that you have, because you meet other people, are able to talk with others, etc. her significance as an endearing companion is diminished and she just becomes annoying.  She becomes a weight around the player's neck because they know they're not alone, or hated, or reliant on Ashley for any other reason than the game says so.

Sums up the problems with Ashley in a single sentence.

            From these two cases, the importance of tone and circumstances is emphasized.  Ashley and Yorda play very similar roles in their respective games, but one is well liked and considered a true companion while the other is a weight around your neck.  At a very basic level, this is a good way to define endearing vs annoying.  Do you want to be with them.  Yorda, while frustrating at times to have due to the instant death one can suffer from her, is all the comfort you have in the game.  You want to be with her, just to relieve the crippling loneliness and feel like you are wanted or needed.  Ashely is not all you have.  You have Ada Wong, Ingrid Hunnigan, or even the villains who taunt you, like Ramon Salazar or Krauser.  Leon is not alone.  Beyond that, he also has other comforts, such as a feeling of superiority in besting enemies with various weapons.  Ashley, therefore, is more frustrating than comforting.  Rather than being endearing, she is annoying.

"Lonely?  Nah, I'm too busy fighting zombies with cool weapons to be lonely?  What was I doing, again?  Oh, right...President's daughter.  Ah, well, that can wait till after my knife fight with my rival."

            Now, with these concepts laid out, let's examine some ways around the Ashley scenario that don't rely so heavily on the bleak circumstances of Ico.  Ways to try and create an endearing companionship while avoiding the burdensome behavior we have seen in the past.  Silent Hill 2 and 4 have tried two different approaches at this.  At various times in the game, you will be forced to have a companion.  In Silent Hill 2, it is the character Maria.  Maria is not really a weight around your neck because she is not necessarily reliant on you.  She dies several times in the game as is, so her protection is not really the player's problem.  She will follow you regardless.  However, the problem with this is that the companionship itself is relatively pointless...she is a comfort in the horrors of Silent Hill, true, but outside of cut scenes, she does very little, so her presence could, in theory be excised without loosing much impact.  Silent Hill 4 takes a different approach, where you have a character who follows you, but her death means your death, like with Ashley, and if she takes too much damage, it will adversely affect the ending.  This encourages players to look after her, but begrudgingly at best.  There are attempts to make her feel necessary, by giving her the ability to wield weapons or make comments about the world around her, however the weaponry takes up precious spaces in your inventory and the comments are easy to miss.  Ultimately, Silent Hill 4's approach is a step in the right direction...but still more frustrating than the consequence free companionship of Silent Hill 2.

Let's go, woman crippled by a beating from a serial killer, with your help we can kill those monsters!  Seriously, it doesn't make a lot of sense, but she does at least try to be useful...that's more than I can say for Ashley Graham.

            Resident Evil 5 actually comes relatively close to making a companion feel both necessary, useful, and even comforting.  The character Sheva wields weapons, just like Chris Redfield, the main character, and is capable not only of looking after herself, but also of protecting the player and assisting them with boss battles.  She can heal Chris or herself, give ammo, and offers both colorful commentary and a feeling of not being alone in a tough situation.  Yet, Sheva is also heavily criticized.  She does not always use the best weapon for the best situation, even if she has it in her possession.  She can waste healing items on minor wounds.  And Sheva also falls under the problematic approach of, if she dies, you die.  While useful and even at times enjoyable to have around, due to her beauty and her useful abilities, Sheva is still a problematic and at times annoying companion.  Sheva is a perfect example of good intentions limited by artificial intelligence.  She tries to act with prudency and humanity, but is limited by the designer's foresight.

Sassy, sultry, capable, and heavily armed...the perfect companion, right?  Err...right?

            I think this is a good time to mention that pretty much every companion I have mentioned is a female.  This is a rather sad trope in companionship in gaming.  Because the popular perception, which is flawed might I add, that most games are played by men, they think that a woman as a companion creates an instant endearment, either for sexual reasons or for reasons of chivalry.  This is, however, a rather pitiful attempt to make a character endearing without giving them any real substance.  Neverdead, for example, has what can only be described as a lascivious young woman accompanying the male character, who can fight and use guns, but still needs to be kept alive...the reason players are supposed to care for her is her looks.  This does not work.  She is frequently a burden and not well liked, due in part to her personality and her voice acting, and in part to the instant death which surrounds her.

Why are we supposed to care again?  Oh, right!  Cleavage!

            There are a few examples of male companions, such as in war games like Resistance: Fall of man, the warrior, dwarf, or wizard characters in Dragon's Crown, male body guards in Skyrim, etc. however they fall prey to a combination of the Silent Hill 2 and the Silent Hill 4 problem.  While they can be useful and helpful for clearing a level by attacking enemies, ala Silent Hill 4, we have no real reason to care, as they have almost no real personality and their deaths mean nothing to us.  This negates any possibility for companionship.  The one time I have seen male companionship done well is in Gears of War, where it is necessary to keep the male characters alive, but they do not die right away...they can bleed out and you can save them, giving you a bit of a buffer.  And likewise, not only do they fight with you, but they can also save you.  It is a nice feeling of camaraderie, only hindered by the generally weak character developments beyond the grizzled soldier stereotype.

Despite the grizzled soldier stereotype, Dom is pretty endearing, due to the brother's in arms-esque nature of Gears of War.

            Probably the best example of a companion character that I have ever seen does still have flaws.  Elizabeth in Bioshock Infinite is an interesting, attractive young lady who frequently gives you money, ammo, weapons, and can create new areas for you to use as cover or to restock your supplies or attack enemies using her unique powers.  The enemies never attack her because of the very good excuse that she is seen as something of a messiah and is respected, so they want to kill you and take her back unharmed.  She frequently talks to the main character, Booker Dewitt, and her absence is felt whenever she is not with you, because she is both a voice of innocence and idealism in a world that is very harsh.  What's more, not only is Elizabeth not a burden on you, but she can also save you from almost certain death.  And this gets into the biggest problem with Elizabeth.  While a beautifully fleshed out character, very useful, and one you do gain a genuine emotional attachment too, she does somewhat cripple the game.  When there is no fear of death, save for the loss of a few coins, it does not encourage the player to get better, nor does it afford the level of challenge one might want in such a game.  In trying to make an endearing companion that is not a burden, the game designers sacrificed challenge and, to a degree, balance.

Sweet and idealistic, helpful and likeable, beautiful and charming, Elizabeth is a great ally...pity she makes the game so blatantly easy.

            So, what do we do to resolve this dilemma?  Well, as far as I can tell, there are three ways to make characters endearing rather than annoying.  The first is circumstance.  Like with Yorda or Elizabeth, use the circumstances of the world to try and make them more endearing.  Yorda is your hope and the only compassion in a cruel world, so you care for her, while Elizabeth is fully fleshed out and is not an over glorified escort mission, due to the fact that she is meant to be captured and not harmed in the context of the game's story.  The second option is much more difficult, as it requires maintaining a balance between usefulness, emotional attachment, and frustration.  This option is to incorporate most of what we have previously discussed into a single character with the caveat that, while she cannot be killed to give you a game over, letting her get hurt will make you feel so bad that you will WANT to protect her.  Perhaps having a character collapse and softly weep in the background for a few minutes, like until you hug her or help her up, might be the needed balance between an escort quest and a genuine companionship story.  However, this requires a high level of polish, both in the AI and in the game design.  Pathfinding issues, idiotic choices, or overuse of said weeping or incapacitation mechanics could cripple it.  Most developers are unwilling to try and work that hard for the endearment.  The third option is the easiest and does not necessarily have to remove endearment from a game.  That option is to not require the character to be a part of battle.  Oh, certainly give them their own personality, their own AI, and things to do, but keep them in a strictly residential district.

Companionship is a delicate balance in gaming between circumstances, game design, and AI.  Sometimes, it's easier to say, "Wait for me, I'll be back" to your friends...it makes the game play better and doesn't sacrifice character development.

            A few might cry sexism, as this is essentially saying that women need to be kept in the home, or what have you, but hear me out.  It's used to great effect in games like Rune Factory Frontier or Pandora's Tower where you have characters important to you and to the plot.  You have companions who do their own thing.  However, they don't need to be in battle.  Their personality, their contributions to you, and their story is what makes them endearing, rather than gameplay mechanics.  In Rune Factory Frontier, the character Mist is very strange, a bit silly, but also very likable.  She will give you gifts, but does not hang around her house.  She goes for errands in the village, tends to her flowers, follows a schedule, etc.  You don't need to worry about her, but at the same time when she gets kidnapped, you want to save her because...the world's just not the same without her.  Elena from Pandora's Tower is another example of this, where her presence is reassuring, she does a huge amount of things for the player, and while she isn't essential, when she is gone, her presence is missed.  This does fall apart a little since players are on a timer with Elena's life on the line, but in concept, it is a good idea.  And it does not have to be limited to domestic or female roles either.  In the early parts of Shining Force 2, characters are accompanied by their mentor, Sir Astral who is purely an adviser and does not take place in battle.  Then, he leaves the party and you spend several hours without him.  Once he rejoins the team, it feels...right, you might say.  You missed the character, even without him having participated in battle because his actions and his role in the story make players care.

Keep calm and eat turnips.  Seriously, without Mist, Rune Factory just isn't Rune Factory.  That's how endearing she is, even outside of battle.

            Ultimately, it is my belief that developers need to ask the Q&A testers one big question when designing a partner in either capacity.  "Does this improve the game?"  With Elizabeth, it does.  Bioshock Infinite would be very different, almost impossible, without her presence.  The same goes for Yorda.  However, think about Ashley Graham...if she was kidnapped and managed to either hide or escape, only reappearing in cut scenes, would that have been such a huge loss?  I'm not so sure, myself.  Developers are going to have to, at times, make compromises when trying to make endearing characters due to time or limitations on hardware, experience, or even by publisher mandate.  However, they can still make the experience enjoyable.  Is Sheva a problem in RE5?  Well, she has her flaws, but the game wouldn't be what it is without her.  And I dare say it might even be a little bit boring.  So, Sheva, despite being flawed is a decent partner.  Same for Dom in Gears of War, as he not only supports you, but can save you, just as you can save him.  Perfect?  No.  But still a part of the game that makes it special and, dare I say it, enjoyable.

A little bit of common sense in game design goes a long way when designing companionship.  Characters can't speak?  Well, let their actions speak louder than words.  Whatever you do, though, make sure it improves the game.

            Common sense is good here...it's great to make a game you love, but also think about who else you're making it for before you make partner death an instant game over, give them a bad personality, or hire an actress to voice them who just doesn't fit.

            Alot of the time, it's not endearing vs annoying.  It's which do we have more of?  Endearing or annoying?  The best most of us can do is try to tip the scale in favor of endearing, because no matter how hard you try, there is not going to be a character for everyone.  So, do your best to make them more fun or meaningful than they are tiresome or troubling.

The Lost Art of Fixed Cameras

Well, I'm back after a long and somewhat miserable Christmas and New Year with perhaps one silver lining.  You see, one of my big presents for Christmas in 2012 were some Amazon Gift cards, which I promptly used to get a few older games for my collection.  One of these games was called Koudelka and I've spent the last few weeks playing it.  When I finished, I had two big thoughts about Koudelka.  The first, was how much the fixed cameras annoyed me, having to constantly switch perspectives and being only able to move and see within a specific area.  And the second was how much I enjoyed the atmosphere, because the fixed cameras kept the game very focused, very intense, and with a lot of details for a relatively unknown release at the time.  As such, I wanted to talk a little about fixed cameras.

Sure don't make em like this anymore.  More's the pity...

            Fixed cameras were used in place of free moving cameras for a number of reasons in the early days of 3d gaming.  There were limitations on how the camera could or should be moved without having it dissolve into the scenery or cause graphical distortions, it meant having to create less environments since you could basically show the player exactly what you wanted to and how you wanted them to see it, it was easy to use for puzzle mechanics, etc.  However, once free moving cameras using the second analogue stick of most controllers became the norm, fixed cameras sort of fell out of fashion, associated more with the tank controls of Resident Evil rather than the atmosphere.  I think this is a mistake.  Now, I'm not saying that everything was better with fixed cameras.  They had a number of issues and limitations.  But, they were a specific kind of tool for a specific kind of job.  And I think that, like most tools, there is an art to wielding it effectively that too many people are unaware of.

A fixed camera shot like this is highly atmospheric,  showing the characters as small compared to the monstrous laboratory around them.  Without any words, this shot conveys exactly the emotions we should feel when we first walk into this lab.

            Fixed cameras, to me, are a little like cinematography tricks.  They can be used most effectively for emphasizing mood.  Placing a camera at a low angle can make the main character seem larger than life, either to emphasize power or to deceive them about what is coming.  Placing it at a higher angle can emphasize weakness, useful for chase sequences or introducing elements that could harm players.  It is key in showing rather than telling a player how they ought to feel.  In this same vein of thought, I am reminded of an adage which made me truly appreciate cinematography. 

Putting the monster in the forefront and having it come in after the character de-emphasizes the player, making them seem weaker and unprepared for the larger than life beast coming at them.  Why don't we use these cinematography tricks as much anymore?!

Bob Chipman, also known as Movie Bob on the Escapist, once compared the original John Carpenter's "The Thing" to theremake/prequel in 2011.  While he praised the original's practical effects, as having something to interact with in a movie always seems more natural than CGI, he said something else that caught my interest.  "A lot of the old practical effects only looked good from a certain angle, so they forced film makers to shoot in a very specific way."  Fixed cameras are a lot like that idea.  There are some scenes which will have more meaning or will only make sense if viewed from a specific vantage point.  This is one of the driving ideas behind extended cut scenes in gaming.  However, because fixed cameras no longer limit how a scene can be shot, many developers seem to be getting sloppier with their work, at least in my eyes.  They haven't learned the basics of framing a scene.  If you want to talk cinematic game design, that is, game design that takes cues from cinema, fixed cameras are an important tool.  Because they are basically like looking through a camera in a movie that the audience cannot control.

Crappy CG of the 2011 Thing vs gorgeous practical effects of John Carpenter's version

Not hard to see which took more effort to create shot to shot, is it?

            Another benefit of fixed cameras comes from developers on a limited budget.  Most game designers like to break into the games industry using 3d games based off of existing engines.  However, this leads to a small problem.  You need to model and texture every wall, every floor, every ceiling, and every piece of furniture, plant, npc, etc. in any given area.  If they used a fixed camera, only one vantage point would need to be modeled because that would be the only vantage point seen.  It could save on development time and on costs.  However, because of how easy it is to misuse fixed cameras, they would need some basic skills with cinematography, as outlined above.

Take a good look at this scene.  A free roaming camera would need the whole room to be crafted from all angles.  A fixed camera only requires three walls, a floor, and some ceiling fixtures from only one angle.  Which do you think is cheaper to make?

            Because of that, I actually believe it might be useful for many aspiring developers to start with fixed cameras.  Use them to create more inexpensive 3d games and learn some basic cinematography skills.  One thing in particular I think that not only aspiring developers but even seasoned veterans could learn from fixed cameras is the adage, "Is it necessary?"  In the modern games industry, excess is a major problem.  Everything, from characters to environments are overblown, over designed, and often garish.  Ask the simple question of, "does seeing all this do anything for the player?"  Fixed cameras are all about economy.  What can be in a shot, what developers need to create for that shot, what can be conveyed with that shot, etc.  I think that going back to basics might help with some of the excess, slim down the games industry from the bloated monster needing to churn out cookie cutter AAA hits into a leaner, more experimental beast that is unafraid to try something new.

I love Darksiders, but look at this image.  This is the basic armor.  Do we really need all those lines, details, and polygons on the basic model?  Is it necessary at all?  Why?

          Koudelka was, for it's time, something new.  It was a survival horror tactical RPG, the likes of which were seldom seen after and have all but disappeared in the modern era.  However, it was not alone in using fixed cameras.  Resident Evil, Parasite Eve, even Final Fantasy pioneered using fixed cameras and did so with smaller, more capable teams than what the industry currently requires.  A part of me yearns for the experimental days of game design, with the atmosphere of a survival horror game being punctuated by a fixed camera showcasing just enough space for a window to break and a dog to leap through or an RPG showing you a gorgeous vista from the only angle that it actually can be gorgeous from.

Koudleka wasn't the only game to benefit from the use of fixed cameras.  Parasite Eve, Resident Evil, and countless others were made better through the focus they provided.

            This is not base nostalgia, either.  It is something that has been expressed by other gamers and reviewers in recent years.  Joe Vargas, better known as Angry Joe from Angryjoeshow.com, when reviewing Resident Evil 6 said something to the effect of "if Capcom cannot generate horror without all the overblown, crowdpandering, idiocy that was RE6, then perhaps they should return to the fixedcamera controls, since at least there you can build atmosphere."

Lackluster quicktime events more suited for an action game than Resident Evil 6...you SURE you don't wanna go back to fixed cameras, Capcom?

            I think fixed cameras are an under utilized tool.  Even if they were done out of limited graphics, not every game needs to look as pretty as Halo 4 or Call of Duty 4.  It is okay to have a game with limited, even polygonal graphics if the gameplay and/or story is solid.  After all, look at Minecraft.  It is blocky, it isn't the shiniest or most impressive of graphics, and the monsters are almost laughable, but it stands on its own because it is fun.  Sadly, even indie designers prefer to avoid using fixed cameras by using user controlled cameras or games that cannot make use of it, like 2-d games.

Not every game has to be this sleek to be good

            Closing out this discussion, let me just say two things.  First, I encourage people to try and release more games with fixed cameras, provided they can do it right.  Older Playstation and N64 games with these fixed cameras, and even into the PS2 era, were able to be more experimental, use them in unique ways, or just create a riskier game with them because there was less of a cost investment due to not having to make as many environments.  There's no reason why indie developers or even mainstream developers and publishers, Capcom, Square, Konami, etc. can't use these advantages to take a few risks, test the water with new properties, or just do something new.  If it costs less and it fails, it's less of a risk.  If it costs less and it succeeds, you get a high return on a low investment.  If you put all your money on the big AAA games or the samey numbered reiterations of sports games or what have you, then...you're asking to fail when the industry eventually turns on your "tried and true" game design.

Where have all the fixed cameras gone?  As time passes...

            Second, I want to say this.  Don't feel like you HAVE to used fixed cameras.  They are a tool and a useful one, but not for every game.  A game like Contra Rebirth or New Super Mario Brothers Wii U don't need a fixed camera and would actually be hindered by it.  However, understand what you can do with a fixed camera.  The cinematic way of building atmosphere without giving exposition or even having the characters speak at all.  How one shot can say all that it needs to in order to make a character in awe, uneasy, or at peace.  Because those skills will help immensely when the time comes to use the free moving cameras, since you'll know how to frame a shot.

Not every game NEEDS a fixed camera, but the lessons you can learn from them shouldn't be forgotten.

            Fixed cameras are part of the game industry's history.  We shouldn't forget about them.  We should learn from them.  Learn how they were used and to what effect.  It will undoubtedly help game design in the long run. 

Anyway, that's my take on fixed cameras.  Yeah, they can be annoyingly restrictive at times, but sometimes a game NEEDS to be restrictive to convey the right message, mood, or atmosphere...or keep costs down.  Something to remember.