Heroes in AGs: Do the players become them or watch them?

[ATMachine]

I was inspired by the Conquests of the Longbow playthrough thread to ask this question to the AG forum. Do you prefer puzzle solutions to be limited to what the main character(s) know or could figure out?

The old LucasArts school of thought was that we never used the word "you" in design documents. We never said "you open the door," we always said "Manny opens the door." You were not the main character, and that was a big design philosophy we all shared.

LucasArts' design philosophy, if taken to its logical conclusion, would mean that you should never have to solve a puzzle using knowledge that the hero doesn't have. I can't think of any such puzzle (excluding copy protection, which was always separate from the gameplay) in any LEC game made after MI1, when their design values first came to fruition.

Obviously, Sierra didn't share this mindset (for instance, quite a few of their games use second person narration). King's Quest 6 and Conquests of the Longbow are two examples of games which have puzzles requiring knowledge outside of what the main character has learned. In other words, the player IS the main character, and anything the player learns, in-game or in the manual, will also enter the protagonist's head by virtue of that.

So which philosophy do you as adventure gamers prefer? Personally, I like the LucasArts approach, because I think it makes a lot more sense, in terms of suspension of disbelief in the game story, if the main character doesn't need to act on knowledge that I have, but he/she is not shown in the game to have.

In a more general sense, I guess this thread is asking the question: Do you, when playing adventure games, consider yourself to be overseeing the main character's actions in a story, or to BE the main character in a story?

[After a brisk nap]

I'm not sure I buy the logic. You could easily make the opposite argument. If I'm not the character, then I'm me, and everything I know is fair game to use within the game. However, if I am the character, that implies a commitment to role-play that character, and stay true to their personality as well as their knowledge.

My point is that it's not so clear cut. Identification with the main character is always a partial thing. It's never complete, but never totally absent, either.

In Sierra games, the player often has a different motivation than the main character. For example, consider our Longbow playthrough with the deliberate attempts to get the lowest possible score. Or all the people who play Sierra games partly to enjoy all the different ways to die. That doesn't really support the idea that the player is the main character.

[ATMachine]

You do have a point about the ambiguity of the matter. I'll concede that there are often motivations to do things in games other than the main character's desires (such as funny death messages in Space Quest, for example).

But if you're not the main character in a game, be it LucasArts or Sierra, then I would argue that the game story exists on two levels: the level on which you're solving the puzzles and guiding the character, and the level on which the character is real in his/her own world, doing things that make sense to him/her.

In which case, I would further argue, a game's plot and puzzles should hold up on both levels. Otherwise, suspension of disbelief in the game world may be harder to maintain, and the plot loses some credibility.

Of course, this only applies to "serious" games. Comedic games can probably throw that out the window with no real harm done (as a way of "breaking the fourth wall.") Besides, this is only my preferred game design philosophy. If other people are fine with such puzzles, more power to them. :)

[Lee in Limbo]

I think a certain level of personal identification, and of immersion, is bound to happen in any game with a strong enough level of narrative and interactivity. Even when I play games where the protagonist is clearly defined, they are usually characterized in such a way that they invite personal identification; the 'POV' character. When level of immersion is an issue, as it always should be, you very often put parts of yourself into the character you are playing to help flesh out the character and fill in the void.

As well, the character's full experience is very often impossible to know completely, and their ability to make rational comprisons and deductions based on seemingly unrelated evidence is pretty much integral to problem solving. While the latter has little to do with defining what you know as opposed to what the character 'knows', the former argues that we can't really say that the character didn't already know what they were facing, in some sense. Just as we make snap judgements based on knowledge sometimes gleaned from almost completely unrelated personal experiences, so too can the protagonist, even if much of their previous experience was relgated to having hunted gophers or sheered sheep or what have you.

But finally, as AABN states, it's virutally impossible to keep your own ego out of the equation, even if you decide to steadfastly roleplay your way through the situationa nd only do what you believe makes sense to the protagonist. Ultimately, I just don't think it's possible to know the full spectrum of resources the hero actually brings to the table, and thus can only guess at what they may or may not be thinking they should do (unless the writer thoughtfully provides inner monologue, which they rarely do any more, and very judiciously even back in the heyday).

Still, I think it's the quality of the writing that makes it possible for us either to immerse ourselves into the game, whether as ourselves or as the character of the protagonist. Without that, it's more like playing a strategy game without armies.

[MoriartyL]

There's certainly enough room for both approaches. Separating the player from the character is a must if you're going to tell a good story. I think Conquests of the Longbow actually does this pretty well, giving Robin motivations the player would not have. I, being used to the anything-goes conventions of RPGs, wanted to steal from Robin's friend, but he would not do so. On the other hand, he was perfectly willing to steal from his enemies. You define a player character by restricting what he can do, and a story generally won't be too great without a good main character.

When the game is driven by anything other than story, this separation doesn't have as much point. It is more exciting to feel like you're going on this journey yourself, rather than feeling like you're helping out the character. I think Myst-like games shouldn't have any in-story player character at all- when you look at a painting, does it matter how characters in the picture would view you? ;)

[colpet]

When I'm playing a 3rd person game I watch them. That's why I prefer a 1st person game. I always feel that I'm immersed in a first person game, even if I'm supposed to be Nancy Drew, Tex Murphy or whoever. I make decisions and choices by what I think, not how I think the character I'm playing would. Which actually explains why I hate dialogue trees. They never have the question or response that I would truly ask in that situation.

[AFGNCAAP]

LucasArts' design philosophy, if taken to its logical conclusion, would mean that you should never have to solve a puzzle using knowledge that the hero doesn't have. I can't think of any such puzzle (excluding copy protection, which was always separate from the gameplay) in any LEC game made after MI1, when their design values first came to fruition.How about Grim Fandango puzzle from Year 4, where Manny has to answer bouncer's question

based on the numbers showing on the display that's ostensibly behind him?

In fact, I'd take After a brisk nap's points one step further and argue that no 3rd person graphical game can be fully devoid of puzzles using knowledge that character doesn't have, if only because the player will almost always be able to see more than the character.
So which philosophy do you as adventure gamers prefer? Personally, I like the LucasArts approach, because I think it makes a lot more sense, in terms of suspension of disbelief in the game story, if the main character doesn't need to act on knowledge that I have, but he/she is not shown in the game to have.

In a more general sense, I guess this thread is asking the question: Do you, when playing adventure games, consider yourself to be overseeing the main character's actions in a story, or to BE the main character in a story?
I really don't have a preference, and for most AGs I played I didn't even feel the need to make such distinction. But I do hate when a game regularly forces me to switch from one mindset to the other, like Runaway: one minute you can't even look at an item just because Brian doesn't need it yet ("being the character"), and the next one you are hunting pixels with your cursor (which is not seen by Brian, thus, "overseeing").

[ATMachine]

Ah... I didn't remember that puzzle, AFGNCAAP. Serves me right for not playing Grim Fandango in a long time.

:pan:
:crazy:
ATMachine

But I think you're right: the time this question is most pertinent is when AGs switch from one style to the other. This really bugged me in Conquests of the Longbow, because two separate puzzles using information found in the game manual were handled in entirely different ways in this regard. In fact, that annoyed me so much, it's why I started this thread in the first place!

[AFGNCAAP]

:D Here, if it makes you feel better, I'll pan myself for lagging behind in the Conquests of the Longbow thread (I found no time to play beyond the first breakpoint):

AFGNCAAP