When we enter into a game in which we assume control of a "player character", the sort of "I" in a game, we have a sort of unspoken contract of assumptions with this character. We assume that, cutscenes excepting, we are in control of the character's actions. We assume that, for the most part, the character doesn't know anything vital that we, the player, aren't privy to. And perhaps most importantly, we assume that the character's motives are in line with our own.
It's rare enough for the player character to betray another in-game character, as it's not a typical "good-guy" thing to do. However, it's a completely different matter when you begin to talk about the character betraying the player himself. In many good games we have this sort of destruction of the barrier between player and character, and this is an effective storytelling device. I believe that a jarring reinforcing of this barrier can be used just as effectively.
For example, suppose that the character were to suddenly reveal himself to be evil, without any input on the matter from the player. Now we suddenly find that the character's motives have been hidden from the player up until this point, and the sudden jarring shift in motive can be an evocative tool, I think.
I can't think of many games that have violated the player-character contract as an intentional device. Karoshi comes to mind, as it deliberately plays the character's motives against the player's general expectations. Any thoughts on the idea, or other specific examples?
|
Another game that comes to mind that does a similar thing is Contact for the DS.
-
-
-
-
KoToR.
Braid.
BioShock (I certainly did NOT want you to just inject yourself with that needle OR eat all those potato chips!)
that's a potentially interesting idea. the only game i can think of that comes close is MGS2. you initially play as Snake and are privy to everything he knows, but after the tanker ending, that trust contract is broken. you no longer are aware of what Snake is up to, and for much of the rest of the game, you're trying to find out what your "former self" was doing. of course, it's not quite the same because after that, you're not playing Snake anymore.
MGS3 also played with this contract in a very powerful way. i'm not sure if it was intentional, but i didn't really realize i was playing Big Boss until the very end. again, not quite the same because you no longer "control" Snake after the end, but splitting off that contract at the end had a great effect on me. it made me sympathize with his actions, even though i might not have done the same. (altho...MGS4 complicates all that even more beyond confusion...)
another game that comes close is Portal. throughout most of the game, you don't really know who Chell - your character - is. you don't know her motives or history. and near the end, GlaDOS says, "You are not a good person, you know." and that makes you wonder..."hmm..who is Chell? why is she here? is she a criminal?" so while it doesn't betray player-character trust, it puts that in to heavy question. really cool. it doesn't really affect gameplay tho.
i can't recall any medium period that does that. narrators in books are usually trust-worthy (although not always correct nor fully-aware), as they are in movies.
imagine if in Half-Life episode 3, Gordon Freeman suddenly reveals himself as a Combine secret spy or something. that'd be interesting...who knows
braid is a pretty interesting case as well. it's hard to say whether Tim realizes what he's doing at all. ..what is it exactly that he's doing anyway?
That's what makes that one in KOTOR especially interesting, to me. Since I was playing it mostly good up to that point, the reveal moment actually encouraged me to take my character down the dark path from there on out. It didn't necessarily break the contract, but it changed the terms, so to speak.