Editorial Bethesda: Interesting and Imaginative = Inaccessible

[Section8]

Tags: Bethesda Softworks; Fallout 3

The latest issue of <a href="http://www.gameinformer.com/default.htm">Game Informer</a>, in addition to featuring Obsiidian's spy thriller Alpha Protocol, has an op-ed piece from Emil Pagliarulo, lead designer of Fallout 3. In it, he talks about storytelling in games, and his ravings spill over onto Bethesda's own <a href="http://bethblog.com/index.php/2008/03/19/emil-writes-for-game-informer/">blog</a>. Briosafreak has the scoop on <a href="http://fallout3.wordpress.com/2008/03/18/most-important-story-in-a-videogame/">Fallout 3: A Post Nuclear Blog</a>:
<br>
<blockquote>If we accept that all video game characters fall under one of three literary classifications — prototype, archetype, and stereotype — it’s easy to see the appeal of the archetype. This is the established, easily-understandable character model. The badass space marine or seductive sorceress. <u>The prototype, while imaginative and interesting, is too easily viewed as ‘weird,’ and that means inaccessible.</u> The stereotype? Overused, oversimplified, and more often than naught, offensive.</blockquote>
<br>

<br>
I for one am glad we'll be seeing established, easily understandable character models such as the bad-ass space marine, and not overused, oversimplified and and offensive stereotypes like the ass-kicking astro-soldier with attitude.
<br>

<br>
In before Brother None of <a href="http://www.nma-fallout.com">NMA</a> hits up our news submission form.
<br>

<br>

 

[Claw]

I am easily convinced that Bethesda finds imaginative and interesting concepts inaccessible.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

One wonders how the world coped before Tolkein. Can you imagine? "Holy shit. This Tolkein stuff with Elves is totally out there and weird!" How :very inaccessible:

I think if people can watch 2001: A Space Odyssey, I'm pretty certain they can handle things that are "a little out there".

 

[Mister Takeda]

Wow, that's pretty damn cynical. What next, Beth? A lengthly diatribe on how mediocrity prevents disappointment?

Save us from the evils of interesting gameplay and original design!

 

[Brother None]

I think if people can watch 2001: A Space Odyssey.

I'm pretty sure Bethesda's target audience can't.

 

[Sovy Kurosei]

I firmly believe the most important story in a video game is the one the player is telling to himself as he plays the game. Its one of the reasons why open ended sandbox games like... our own Elder Scrolls series are so awesome.

It is funny how he uses the phrase "the one the player is telling himself" where it conjures up memories of the forum LARPers of the ESF.

 

[Section8]

Yeah, the most important story is the one you're telling the game, not yourself.

 

[Lurkar]

I dunno. This isn't really news. It's like some crazy homeless guy who yells about the world ending suddenly changes his rants to lizardpeople doing 9/11. While they're technically saying something different, it's still just the same bullshit we've all come to expect.

 

[Gromnir]

One wonders how the world coped before Tolkein. Can you imagine? "Holy shit. This Tolkein stuff with Elves is totally out there and weird!" How :very inaccessible:

...

there is clearly some misconception 'bout terminology if you thinks tolkien gets benefit o' prototype. tolkien unabashedly used archetype, and largely avoided character development beyond the broad brush stokes... and the all important naming o' said character. is absolute 0 that is prototype in tolkien works, with the possible exception of hobbits. tolkien did takes the everyman kinda hero and made literal small.

scope of work? yeah, in that tolkien broke new ground. never before had a single writer o' fantasy developed such a complete, coherent, and internal rational word/world as did tolkien. bravo. even so, if you thinks sauron or gandalf or any other lotr character is prototype, then you complete miss point o' what tolkien were trying to do. an author trying to crate an english mythology that would resonate with subconscious o' an entire culture does not go and aim for prototype, so lack o' prototype is hardly a criticism o' tolkien neither.

btw, there is 0 wrong with archetype. most popular fiction is peopled with such characters. success, failure, quality and crap not hinge on the proto v. arch distinction.

emil has a point, particularly for somebody working on a multi-million dollar project that is 'posed to appeal to millions o' customers. is not like Joyce working on Dubliners... and refusing publisher revisions for over a decade until he finds somebody who will print unadulterated. Joyce could afford to stand on principle as he were one guy with a vision. bethesda is a Business that is trying to make money selling entertainment. don't delude self into thinking that bethesda has the luxury o' being able to take some kinda artistic high ground.

by the same token, use archetype not mean you gotta be dull, boring and repetitive. can use archetypes and explore from different pov. can write the same old story in ways never considered previous. The Dark Knight Returns is a freaking comic book for chrissakes. is as low-brow as you can get w/o being on tv. nevertheless, TDKR not only embraces archetypes, but it manages to break new ground. TDKR parallels with Beowulf is scary obvious, but only in retrospect. is actually pretty freaking clever.

and hows about star wars? is original? only the setting o' star wars is arguable prototype. all the most basic fantasy archetypes is present in star wars... but the delivery is original, so the old classic tale gets new life and appeals to a new generation.

prototype CHARACTERS, as is discussed by emil, is rare in popular entertainment, and for good reason. the genuine new and original character is unlikely to resonate with an audience w/o some serious development, and what crpg format possibly allows for such intimate character development as is necessary to allow resonance with audience? sure, you can find examples, but they is rare... and even more rare in commercially succesful products. crpg development is always tied to limited resources, and use archetypes is a very useful shortcut in reaching the target audience. sure, you can use archetype to challenge the audience, but regardless, the archetype already exists in psyche and subconscious, so the crpg writer gets benefit from using either as a stock character... or in an attempt to carve out some original aspect not seen before from the base archetype. there ain't no inherent positive 'bout prototype characters. terrible prototypes is no better than terrible archetypes... and as a good yarn can be spun from archetype characters, it is rarely advisable to try for genuine prototype.

however, please keep in mind that emil mentions archetype CHARACTERS. use o' archetype not mean you cannot be original or fresh with STORY. do TDKR or Star Wars with archetype characters and you can still gets laurels for originality.

try not to get confused by terminology.

HA! Good Fun!

ps don't force Gromnir to defend bethesda in the future as it makes us feel dirty.

 

[Rhett Butler]

I couldn't help myself, I had to comment. It's "awaiting moderation", so I thought it best to quote it here.

"The prototype, while imaginative and interesting, is too easily viewed as ‘weird,’ and that means inaccessible."

So anything original is inaccessible? People get confused when not presented with stereotypes? Don't you think that's a little jaded, and kind of insulting to your fanbase? Perhaps a Better question would be how exactly Emil feels qualified to make that statement, all of the previous Bethesda games I have played have been jam packed with nothing but "archetypal" fantasy characters. What are some examples of original characters you guys have tried and had rejected?

Not only am I amazed he said that, I am amazed you are actually quoting it here for all to see. It's not a statement I would be proud of.

PS: I'd view badass space marines and seductive sorceresses as stereotypes myself.

 

[Annonchinil]

The prototype, while imaginative and interesting, is too easily viewed as ‘weird,’ and that means inaccessible.

Gromir I agree with you but take out prototype from the quote and just replace it with anything else. Emil is arguing against ' imaginative and interesting' because by some reason it is 'weird' and inheretly 'inaccessible'

 

[Gromnir]

The prototype, while imaginative and interesting, is too easily viewed as ‘weird,’ and that means inaccessible.

Gromir I agree with you but take out prototype from the quote and just replace it with anything else. Emil is arguing against ' imaginative and interesting' because by some reason it is 'weird' and inheretly 'inaccessible'

is not because something is imaginative and interesting that bethesda dismisses. in spite of imaginative and interesting, the proto character is usually just too weird for typical audience to appreciate. wrong? again, keeps in mind that the observation is made specific related to three broad groups o' characters emil sets forth: proto, arch & stereo. 'ccording to bethesda, the prototype CHARACTER is too easily viewed as weird. untrue?

*shrug*

particularly in a crpg where you got relative limited dialogue and text for actual character development, making the audience see the prototype character as other than weird is a difficult task.

"imaginative & interesting"... is how you describe performance art or interp dance that your girlfriend forces you to attend along with herself.

regardless, betehsda says so much stoopid stuff that people not gotta imagine horribleness into their words.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Texas Red]

So how the hell did Morrowind sell all those millions?

I like this Emil's views. Kay, let's not innovate at all because it woulnd't bring in any profit. Sci-fi didn't happen, Tolkien didn't happen, impressionism didn't happen and whatever. Everything would have been to risky to market.

Imagine Timmy sitting on the couch playing his shitbox, smacking down enemies left and right. Suddenly he drops his controller, regardless that he had fun killing, shooting and improving his character, because "Gosh golly, these houses seem just too strange for my liking." People will play what they are told to play, as evidenced by Morrowind and Oblivion, both of which are different in terms of originality but ultimately crappy games that got high scores, and bashed by everyone else. Do they really think that if Blizzard or Bioware, for example, would develop some new weird game that would get praised by every reviewer, would somehow fail because of the strangeness?

 

[Xi]

I've witnessed pure fail before, but never have I seen fail so precisely reinacted. This transcends Dumbfuckery, in fact, monkeys banging on keyboards might produce something more SPECIAL than this.

 

[Nutcracker]

This shouldnt be a news post, it belongs in General RPG.

On topic - what a pathetic human being.

 

[muds_animal_friend]

In fairness, Emil is only putting a spin on H. L. Mencken's statement:

"No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people."

It’s not the ‘80s anymore; mainstream computer games are no longer made for the right side of the bell curve. Look at the financial investment required to produce an AAA game these days, who's willing to take risks with that kind of money? Why spend time crafting a Morrowind style universe when an Oblivion will suffice?

 

[Naked Ninja]

Emil’s words are great! Much like a book, who wants dull characters that one can predict, and who wants people that are not REAL? Emil seems to get what a character should be, this gets me rather excited for FO3.

Ack, Headpain! The stupidity, it burns.

 

[Herbert West]

The prototype, while imaginative and interesting, is too easily viewed as ‘weird,’ and that means inaccessible.

There are two explanations for this outrageous statement.

One is "You are a bunch of retards and therefore we will make as simple and dumb a game as we can, so that you can comprehend it. Fuck you idiot. We just want your money".

The second: "We are unable to design anything creative and original, so we shall portray originality and creative design as incomprehensible and counter to good gaming experience. And we don't give a fuck anyway. We just want your money".

I find both possible explanations offensive to me as a potential [yeah, right...] buyer.

 

[DraQ]

Bethesda no longer sucks, now they are the the suck.

Hmm...
Hines being anthropomorphic personification of suckage? That would explain extra facial muscles.

 

[Black]

I am easily convinced that Bethesda finds imaginative and interesting concepts inaccessible.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

It’s not the ‘80s anymore; mainstream computer games are no longer made for the right side of the bell curve.

Tis true, configuring a game to work with a soundcard back then was like passing the stupid test.

 

[Ion Flux]

Holy crap dude. I guess he's just being honest, but it's awfully depressing. This is always what happens when art spawns industry. Music, film, and now video games. Find a formula that targets the lowest common denominator and ride it all the way to the bank. Sucks.

 

[Gromnir]

*sigh*

again, just to repeat, use of archetypal CHARACTERS does not necessarily result in bad story. use of archetype not even have to result in formulaic story. can still be original even with archetype characters. can be insightful and complex and imaginative with archetypes as readily as with prototype. one o' our favorite film examples when illustrating creative use of archetypes and stereotypes is American Beauty. Every character in American Beauty is pretty much cliche. nevertheless, the movie manages to end up with an original Story. American Beauty would not succeed so well if not for fact that it assaults us with stereotypes. you already know the middle-aged guy going through the mid-life crisis, and the military homophone who is actually a closeted homo before yous sees 'em in AB. the lolita character who ain't never actually had sex? yeah, that one is Real original. you know 'em... or you think you does. every AB character is portrayed almost over-the-top cliche... on purpose.

archetype characters does not relegate story to fodder for the lowest common denominator, just as prototype not ensure quality. use of archetype characters in a crpg is not bad idea, given limited resources. use the archetypes simply to tell same old formulaic pap? yeah, that is bad, but nothing emil said suggests that he is in favor o' doing so.

when bethesda talks stoopid they should be chastised. this ain't one of those situations.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Ion Flux]

one o' our favorite film examples when illustrating creative use of archetypes and stereotypes is American Beauty. Every character in American Beauty is pretty much cliche. nevertheless, the movie manages to end up with an original Story. American Beauty would not succeed so well if not for fact that it assaults us with stereotypes.

You are correct. I am absolutely certain that Fallout 3 will use archetypes and stereotypes solely for ironic juxtaposition.

Your point would be a good one if it weren't for what we all know is coming. Shallow, Gears of War style sterotypes, fed to console-playing casual gamers who love Michael Bay movies and don't read books. It's what's comfortable, it's what they expect, and therefore it's what will make Bethesda money.

 

[Gromnir]

"Your point would be a good one if it weren't for what we all know is coming. "

you do recognize the fatally flawed logic you use, no? you complain 'bout what elmo or eli or whatever the bathesda schnook's name is, but you is pretty much ignoring what were actually said. you already Know what is coming, so simply ignore what is said or spin as bad as you possibly can. your past experience with bethesda is coloring your judgment... and there ain't nothing wrong with that. the problem is that you find some dastardly intent in the current bethesda remarks regardless of what is actually stated, 'cause you Know what they is actually gonna do.

fine. call bs on bethesda if you wish. tell 'em that you not believe 'em when they says the sun will rise tomorrow, but to criticize bethesda for quoted remarks makes codexians look like fools more so than do the bathesda folks.

btw, oblivion developers has made some similar observations 'bout crpg archetypes use in the past, w/o the codexian uproar and response we see here. difference in treatment of obsidian v. bethesda? is you folks reading intent into the words.

HA! Good Fun!