The quotation in the title of this entry is probably one of the most famous video game antagonist lines. And it is not there by chance, I assure you.
In this entry I planned to finally talk about a gaming related topic – the presentation of Evil in Games. More specifically “the evolution of presentation of negative and a-moral actions and antagonists in games. “
Video games have come a long way from Bowser (Super Mario) to Liquid Snake (Metal Gear Solid 4) and mentioning how this progress happened and why is sure worth making a note about.
Especially since titles like Grand Thief Auto, Red Dead Redemption and The Witcher managed to blur the line between moral “moral” and “amoral” Non- Player-Character so much that (exactly like in most modern works of media) there is no longer such categories as “good” and “bad” character.
Because of such titles game ethics is no longer about good or evil , but about characters with idealistic “moral” view on ethics against such with “practical” morality – ethics in direct relation to their current goals.
The differences are normally presented in how far and how complex the relation between amoral actions and positive motivation is. The case refers to the presentation of characters and their motivation, not to the player freedom of moral choice.
The change of the presentation and the motivation of the different characters in a story, is naturally related to the evolution and sophistication of game plots.
As gameplay grew more sophisticated, so did the need to motivate the player to “experience” and chose to invest their time and effort in the gaming segment itself. When lacking the competitive drive there is only one option left:
Other than creating a successful game mechanics that is creating a plot and story, that are both extensive enough to cover and justify all the gameplay elements, but also deep and intriguing enough to “charm” the player to finish the game.
Thisrequired characters capable of supporting a complex plot structure.
Of course simple, “one dimensional motivation” characters (and villains especially) had one crucial limitation. Bowser stealing the princes again and again could work for a simple(even if perfect) platformer(Super Mario series) , but could Dracula just being evil and waiting for you in the last room of his castle, provide enough motivation for the player to explore over 200 different rooms of the said castle, just to reach and defeat him(Castlevania Series)…
“Ad hoc evil characters” did not allow for the plot structure to be broken out of the standard narrative shape – a game that has a story based on one dimensional antagonist only had a limited “life span” that lasts as long as the villain and his direct goal are compromised. It could not intrigue the player ,which meant it only had a limited “novelty” value before it’s plot stopped being a motivation, no matter how well presented it was.
Thus for such a game to be successful a very strong game play core was needed, which is in fact a lot more expansive to create and realize.
On the other side, just like an intriguing story can maintain interest in a rather blandly written book, so an engaging story can perfectly motivate a player to experience an otherwise not so well distinguished game core. A perfect example for that would be Legacy of Kain :Blood Omen 2 , which was vastly criticized for how bland it’s gameplay was.
However due to its heavy emphasis on story AND EXACTLY because of the way the negative (evil) characters such as Kain, The Sarafan Lord and even the minor bosses are portrayed and developed with their motivations inside the plot was positively received both by critics and the audience of the series. http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/bloodomen2/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary%3Bread-review
So back on track , the need for more complicated plots was born from the inability of every title to posses the innovative creativity capable of supporting itself(Blood Omen 2 is for example the basic action adventure with no innovative mechanics or twists whats ever) ,and the attempt to still win the player over in the context of what has already been created.
In laymen’s terms a “complicated plot” means only one thing – “Plot twists” For those to happen a very simple thing was needed to justify their presence – motivation on the side of the perpetrator of the twist.
Naturally for this twist to sound reasonable, a set of qualities for the character needed to be set and shown. His emotions to be explained through his “story”, that would hint of such a possibility actually making sense to the player.
So simply put – for the antagonist to surprise the player, and for character interaction to change while the plot developed the game needed to explain “Why?”…And thus the motivated, “active” villain was born.
First as simple explanations before the final boss battles (Dracula in Castlevania), than with several appearances and confrontations during the game itself(Gannon – The Zelda Series) and finally as fully developed NPC characters along the main cast.(Sephirot in Final Fantasy 7) The villain no longer was a simple beacon that marked the end of the game – he/she was an active agent to make the game happen for the player –of explaining and motivating the actions the player had to take, in an environment where the game was no longer a simple “kill’em all” routine.
To be continued with the 90’s ,the role of horror games ,the role of violence and player actions judgment and GlaDOS…
Music of this entry:
Covenant - We Stand Alone
Ashbury Heights - Ashes in her Breath
Yade - Hunter
Qntl - Ludus
