|
|
|
|
[This Article has been scrubbed by top Counter-Spoiler Software to ensure a Spoiler-Free experience.]
So, I finally got my copy of Deus Ex: Human Revolution. I pre-ordered the Augmented Edition from GameStop for the art book and the special features disk; I love little things like that which give you an insight into game design. It's fascinating for me to get an idea of how a game is formulated, how each element in the mixture comes together harmoniously into a whole. There are some little things in that design that I want to talk about, but we'll get into the nitty-gritty of that in a moment. It took me three days for my first playthrough, with around 8 to 10 hours logged each day back-to-back, and probably around 15 to 20 on the final day. It's just one of those games that is impossible to put down once you begin. Like a great novel that keeps you up half the night always dying to see what's on the next page. My time with the game was always tense, with each next step toward the finish line revealing dozens of different ways to approach each goal. I'm now a few hours into the game on the Give Me Deus Ex difficulty, and there literally hasn't been a single thing I've done the same yet. The level of work put into the options given to you as a player is just staggering compared to most games on the market. I love this more than anything about Deus Ex: Human Revolution: it's a game which is first and foremost about the gameplay. That's not to say that the story isn't present in everything the game throws at you as well. Nearly every nook and cranny of the game seems to have been carefully formulated, nurtured, and selected to serve the greater narrative. Which is excellent in its own right, especially insofar as the game's propensity for taking the bulk of that narrative out of cutscenes and into the game world, making it present if you want it and unobtrusive if you don't. The story provides a framework for the superb gameplay without getting in the way of it. It's a subtle touch that's lost on a lot of games. You can see the opposite effect in games like Final Fantasy XIII, where the story is overwhelming and propagates itself into the gameplay rather than creating a web which supports the game. One of the most difficult things about game design is the marriage of gameplay and story into something coherent and enjoyable for the player. Some games get it wrong. Some games get it right. Some games split the difference. Deus Ex: Human Revolution generally gets it more right than wrong, but it's the wrong part that I really want to talk about today. The only real bone I have to pick with Deus Ex: Human Revolution, is Adam Jensen, and in a greater sense the trend in certain games to leave a character's motivations and intentions open ended. My problem is this: in a game that is as story dependent as Deus Ex: Human Revolution, it is nearly impossible to execute a Multiple Choice Protagonist properly. What is a Multiple Choice Protagonist, you ask? It's pretty simple: any time a character is written in such a way as to leave their motivations and methods up to the player, you have a Multiple Choice Protagonist. The idea being to give the player the ability to formulate their own interpretation of the character in question rather than having the writer pre-define it for the player. In a deep and rich story driven environment this presents problems because the story of the game must be written in such a way that any individual player's interpretation of the character and their choices must be accounted for somewhere in the narrative. Some games are entirely based around this phenomena. inFAMOUS did a pretty good job with the concept, but it sidestepped the actual part where the player gets to form their own interpretations of Cole. inFAMOUS at its core was just two stories, and depending on which route you took you got one story or the other. Other games which give the player the ability to define their protagonist include The Witcher, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age II and Mass Effect. All of these games are narrative frameworks which are built from the ground up around a player's choice in the narrative. Some elements of the story are out of the player's reach, but in their interaction with the story through their character they are able to define the motive and method of the protagonist. Unfortunately, they all share the same troubles I'm about to point out in the portrayal of Adam Jensen in Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Adam Jensen is purposefully played as close to blank as possible in order to facilitate the Multiple Choice Protagonist phenomenon. He isn't completely devoid of personality, though. He retains a slight sense of humor, and an intense amount of anger and drive. There are even moments when this invisible badass/walking arsenal is vulnerable in surprisingly human ways. It's quite pleasant to watch and find a new facet to him you hadn't seen or noticed before. Furthermore, the dialogue options which you have to choose from are varied and each one seems plausible as a response from your custom-tuned security chief. They remain individual enough for you to choose from them, seeking to define Adam as you want him to be, while never quite stepping outside the boundaries of who he is within the greater story of the game. The problem only creeps into view as you get deeper into the game and you begin to pick up strange, counter-intuitive vibes from Jensen as he converses with other characters. As Jensen's vested emotional interest in the story grows, his interaction with other characters likewise becomes more volatile and direct. This leads to the inevitable problem of the Multiple Choice Protagonist, in which the character you play appears to become almost bipolar and flip-flops between all the defined roles and ideologies at the player's disposal. Despite all that the player has built upon the framework of Jensen, through learning more about him and simultaneously defining him by actions and dialogue choices, when the emotion finally starts coming out that illusion of the player-defined Jensen melts away and utterly shatters immersion. Jensen angrily questions ideals which the player may have previously had Jensen accept with the absolute certainty of faith. He gives thought to ideas that the player may have stringently avoided, and their perceived version of Jensen would never even consider. It becomes impossible to track your Jensen through to the end of the game; he gets lost somewhere in all the jockeying to satisfy everyone's version. I like risks and new things in games. I think it keeps them fresh, exciting, and interesting. Deus Ex: Human Revolution followed in the footsteps of a lot of games which seek to provide the player with as much choice as humanly (or inhumanly) possible, chief among these influences being the original Deus Ex. It takes some exciting steps in the writing department; when Jensen is not being played in such a way as to seem to be the polar opposite of the vision you have of him, he can be one of the most surprisingly intuitive Multiple Choice Protagonists I have ever played, and much of that satisfaction is thanks to some absolutely stellar writing and acting. Even so, Deus Ex: Human Revolution is unable to avoid one of the biggest pitfalls of the Multiple Choice Protagonist route, namely that when the character is presented with multiple options, he must be played in such a way that leaves him disgusted and simultaneously compelled by all of them in order to justify all possible decisions at the player's disposal. This problem is something Deus Ex: Human Revolution very nearly avoided aside from a few very particular conversations and scenes. Unfortunately for everyone who gets pulled into the tale of Adam Jensen there will inevitably be a moment which breaks their immersion in the world and the character. All it takes is a receptive stance on the wrong side of an issue, emphasis and tone in a strange place, or some other subtle conversational cue. This game, and Adam Jensen in particular, came about as close to perfectly playing the part of the Multiple Choice Protagonist as any other game I've played which features the phenomena. It's just a pity that it eventually, perhaps inevitably, drops that carefully and immaculately maintained ball.
|
|
|
|
Post a comment! You can also post a photo below:
|
Comment with FacebookClick connect and comment instantly! |
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds |
Comments policy
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?
Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!

Follow
RSS
Contact
For example, in my first playthrough I pretty much responded to things naturally, like I would if I was in Adam's shoes. I was generally helpful to those who seemed in need, vengeful to those I thought wronged me, and constantly suspicious about everybody. In that setting, most of his dialogue and actions in cut-scenes and conversations seemed natural and right. However, in my second play through I decided to try and play the part of a corporate stooge, a shameless rank climber and yes-man who gladly did all of Serif's dirty work and was constantly keeping an eye on ways to get ahead. So after mercilessly slaughtering anyone David pointed me towards, tightly enforcing all Serif security protocols, and scrubbing evidence of corporate wrong doings, it seemed a little odd when I would call the Boss out as a hypocrite and monster in cinematics.
Its funny you mention DA:2 which I thought actually had a decent system for adding character to the PC while letting you define that character. Conversation trees generally had three options, a white knight positive response, a snarky or saucy comment, or an aggressive tone. Depending on which of these options you choose most frequently, some of the normal non-player dictated dialogue would change to reflect that. Consistent dead-pan snarkers would automatically throw in quips and jibes when negotiating with Rage Demons, while aggressive hard-nose mercs would dismiss cries for help out of hand or skip straight to the "whats in it for me" part. I liked that system because it kept the player in control while avoiding the weird schizophrenia multiple choice protagonists sometimes suffer from.
It would be a nightmare to implement and cost that much more time and money for the writers and guys in the sound-booth, but maybe games like DE:HR could use some kind of behind the scenes attitude and loyalty system. A system that shapes and smooths dialogue to suit the players personality and previous actions without changing the overall story. It could incorporate things like the players frequency to use lethal force (or what kind of target they typically kill), their tendency to ask suspicious questions, the kinds of jobs they take and refuse, ect. Not sure if it would be worth all the effort in the end.
I think eventually a game will get it dead on, though. Just going to have to wait it out.
I absolutely agree that Dragon Age 2 did an amazing job at gauging the player's outlook and working it into the non-selected dialogue. This system even causes you to get into fights you might have talked your way out of if you'd had a different dominant personality type. It still has a few moments where the game breaks from your intended attitude, but they vary greatly compared to the other games I listed and you don't run into them as often.
Unfortunately, while Dragon Age 2 lets you choose a personality type and adjusts to suit its gameplay and some of its story to that experience, it also doesn't give you as much freedom in how you are able to define your character in terms of active gameplay; in the end it's all a route filled with monsters and only very occasionally a moral dilemma. The reason I consider Deus Ex: Human Revolution to be closer to the perfect manifestation of the Multiple Choice Protagonist, is that its choices go beyond what you do in dialogue and actually take place a lot in the game world rather than the game narrative. It goes far beyond the binary "I will fight them" or "I will not fight them", like most of the decisions in the Mass Effect and Dragon Age games tend to lean toward.
Deus Ex is all about the grey areas. There are no heroes, no angels.
Adam wants to do the right thing, sure, but by the end of the story were your choices good or something you just could rationalize as good?
Adam Jensen and the Dentons - they're well-meaning men thrown into the grey areas and forced to make a choice. A choice that can been interpreted many ways, but still ultimately a negative choice to anyone that didn't have the power to make that choice.
Adam is very much defined by the player's choices. The moves he makes are the moves the player chooses for him; they determine if Adam is still a good man after his experience, an embittered shell of what he was, or any number of other psychological connotations. The player's perception of him is unique to each individual; the Adam Jensen you speak of is a man who wants to do the right thing, but are you sure that's the actual definition of the character, or just your definition of him?
Look at Wrenchfarm's two conflicting playthroughs, typifying Adam by using himself as a model in Adam's position, and then turning around and playing him as an ambitious corporate ladder-climber. Both of these scenarios are possible, and both of them are interpretations of the same character, and both serve to create very different views of the man in question. If there is a baseline to Adam Jensen, it is something that is infinitely built upon by the player throughout the game. The player has everything to do with who Adam is, more importantly who he becomes in the course of the story. The character is written and acted intentionally vague in order to cultivate and capitalize on that sense of each player having an individual Adam Jensen, unique to their playthrough and playstyle. Is Adam a pragmatist who adapts and comes to value his augments, or is he just driven into his work by the guilt of surviving the attack? Does he like his new augmented self, or hate what he's become? These are things at the deepest core of his character, and they can only be decided by the player. We define him in how we see him and how we play him; a tragic Phoenix, a guilty security officer, a pragmatic killer, a sympathetic ex-cop. He can be all of these things, depending on the player's view and choices.
Even the original Deus Ex gives you a minimum margin of definition; JC can be and become a great deal more than just a well-meaning man in a gray world. All that's required is that the player make a choice. A choice which, at its core, defines the character they are playing.
There are limits to what can be written as well. The writers cannot account for personal opinions about how a character would react. Jensen could do cover-ups and still question is boss's motives - given he's covering things up I'd say it gives him a bit of leverage to interrogate.
Again - there is no "good" in Deus Ex. Period. You might make choices for the guy you're playing, but you cannot be 100% sure you know him. JC Denton actually proves this. Did you think your reunion with him in DX2 was going to be a homecoming? The world hated the guy and rightfully so.
If they decide to make a direct sequel, if you meet Adam, he may not be the man you believed him to he.
"Some" predefinitions and entirely predefined are very different things. Zeke Sanders is entirely predefined. David Sarif is entirely predefined. Jensen does not react to everything in a specific way; you choose his reactions on most occasions. You choose his personality, his ideology, and his approach. These choices take place both in dialogue and in the gameplay; inevitably, Jensen is shaped by the player in some form. And, indeed, the player is able to make some of the most important decisions of Adam's life for him. How those decisions pan out, and what becomes of Adam after the game, that's a decision for the writers of the next one. If he shows up in another game he may well be a different man than where I left off; but that history will still be in him. It's all semantics anyway though, no such game exists at this time. The issue I've brought up isn't that Adam has a personality conflicting with what I see him as, it's that it's evident that he doesn't have a deeply defined personality beyond the player's decisions. The non-controlled dialogue in the game can be, particularly as the game ramps up to its conclusion, emotionally and logically contradictory. Adam essentially argues against himself in the attempt to demonstrate and justify the choices available to the player; this clashes with the greater majority of the game, which is satisfyingly player-driven. It's an immersion breaker in an otherwise incredible narrative experience, and it's one of the pitfalls of the Multiple Choice Protagonist. I'm not surprised it happened, or angry, I'm just noticing it and wondering what can be done about it in the future for games like this which take this approach to character building. Other games with Multiple Choice Protagonists overcome this particular obstacle typically by presenting support characters which offer up their views, thus short-circuiting the problem of having a solo character make contradictory statements and argue against themselves to demonstrate to the player what paths are available.
As far as "good" goes in Deus Ex, there's plenty of good to be done. There's a lot of shades of gray in there, but stating flatly that there is no good is just naive. What good there is may be a matter of opinion, but that's inherent in the nature of our interpretation of actions. Case in point, in the mission you run in Detroit for that old police contact you have the option of letting the crooked officer go, or keeping a weapon for yourself, or handing it all over and turning it into a smooth case. Is there good in ensuring that a killer and an engineer of a citywide gangwar nightmare goes to prison? I certainly think so. Is there good in helping a man face his demons, and later helping him when he's in need? I believe there is. Or, how about saving a woman from being forcibly augmented? "Good" is highly subjective. Don't count it out of the equation entirely just because the series doesn't present a binary choice between good and evil. Just because the game doesn't give you points for it doesn't mean it's all shades of gray; good and evil still exist, but predominately in the mind of the player.