Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
STORY DEVELOPEMENT: KILLING OFF CHARACTERS
Posts
Ashramaru
39
Ashramaru
View playlists
CloseA creator develops characters over and over again, it's the norm in most stories, and RPGs. There are some characters who remain the same throughout (Static) while others continue to change, their personalities, their actions; their entire way of life is at the command of the creator's hand. Now let's say as you progress with your work, you have developed likable characters. The "Funny Guy", the "Epic Hero", the "Beautiful Babe", etc, etc, all of which contribute to the games story, and shape the world of which we play in. As time pasts and the story continue, characters may reach the end of their development, the end of their lives, death. Killing off Characters has been a method used in may games in the past, a technique that adds action, drama, suspense, and various emotions to the hearts and minds of the player. In the past Movie, Anime, Manga, Stories, have Killed Off characters left and right, some deaths so sad that they can bring a tear to the viewer's eye (Aerith).
Question: As game developers do you view killing off Characters as a useful Story Device, do you feel that it is over used, or do you feel that is just pointless, and if so what occasion for each question.
My Answer: In my mind Killing off a Character is essential if, and only if the Character brings something to the story. People die every day and some death of which, as sad as it sounds, do not affect our lives at all. Will killing off some King that you will never see, meet or have any effect to the story really matter? No. Killing off useless Characters is meaningless to plot, let alone a waste of time. You may agree of disagree with me on this, but I believe a Character should be killed off only to add a new level of emotion to the game. Lets say you just beat a long dungeon, and get to an epic sequence of events, in which the main character's best friend, takes a bullet for the protagonist. In this case, emotion is added, and thus it could contribute to growth of the protagonist, change in his mind. However this device can also be seen as two sided. Take Naruto for example, killing of Asuma and then Ero Sennin was the worst Development Ploy I have ever seen. It would be one thing to kill them off, however, using death as a means to incite growth twice in a row, is a bit…repetitive. In my new game Last Bible, I have been trying to toy around with the Players emotions a bit. Odds are that it wont work, but If anyone has seen V-Gundam, then you know what I mean by toying with emotions. Basically develop characters to such and extent that the Player actually feels for a Character. When a Character feels down, the Player may feel down, when the Character has achieved his/her goals, the Player feels happy. I don't know if it is possible to do with the use of RM2k3, but I don't believe software dictates a story, perhaps inhibits certain actions, but even a shitty program could develop Characters to such an extent that when they died, you would feel a bit sad.
Discuss…
Question: As game developers do you view killing off Characters as a useful Story Device, do you feel that it is over used, or do you feel that is just pointless, and if so what occasion for each question.
My Answer: In my mind Killing off a Character is essential if, and only if the Character brings something to the story. People die every day and some death of which, as sad as it sounds, do not affect our lives at all. Will killing off some King that you will never see, meet or have any effect to the story really matter? No. Killing off useless Characters is meaningless to plot, let alone a waste of time. You may agree of disagree with me on this, but I believe a Character should be killed off only to add a new level of emotion to the game. Lets say you just beat a long dungeon, and get to an epic sequence of events, in which the main character's best friend, takes a bullet for the protagonist. In this case, emotion is added, and thus it could contribute to growth of the protagonist, change in his mind. However this device can also be seen as two sided. Take Naruto for example, killing of Asuma and then Ero Sennin was the worst Development Ploy I have ever seen. It would be one thing to kill them off, however, using death as a means to incite growth twice in a row, is a bit…repetitive. In my new game Last Bible, I have been trying to toy around with the Players emotions a bit. Odds are that it wont work, but If anyone has seen V-Gundam, then you know what I mean by toying with emotions. Basically develop characters to such and extent that the Player actually feels for a Character. When a Character feels down, the Player may feel down, when the Character has achieved his/her goals, the Player feels happy. I don't know if it is possible to do with the use of RM2k3, but I don't believe software dictates a story, perhaps inhibits certain actions, but even a shitty program could develop Characters to such an extent that when they died, you would feel a bit sad.
Discuss…
Jabbo
140
Death is pretty much it, so the moment a character up and dies and the player is just like "Meh, death, lame cliche"... well, shouldn't happen. As long as the death is actually done properly and has meaning to the story ("Whoops, random minor antagonist shot my friend!" generally won't do it).
Another point to be made is that if no one ever dies, then the player just comes to take a happy ending for granted. And if you're going for a story with a little more pathos and a deeper meaning than "Heroes save the world yay," then you have to make sure that the player doesn't take it for granted that no one dies. I mean yeah, good triumphs over evil, but good can take some losses too. The player should feel on edge when you want them to.
People should take care not to use death simply as a plot twist, though. That's usually a big turnoff, at least to me. And similar to what I said above, death really doesn't have a place in a "Heroes save the world yay" story, and as stated in another topic those can work fine as games, too.
Another point to be made is that if no one ever dies, then the player just comes to take a happy ending for granted. And if you're going for a story with a little more pathos and a deeper meaning than "Heroes save the world yay," then you have to make sure that the player doesn't take it for granted that no one dies. I mean yeah, good triumphs over evil, but good can take some losses too. The player should feel on edge when you want them to.
People should take care not to use death simply as a plot twist, though. That's usually a big turnoff, at least to me. And similar to what I said above, death really doesn't have a place in a "Heroes save the world yay" story, and as stated in another topic those can work fine as games, too.
Shadowtext
120
I think that killing off player characters in a game is basically always a bad idea in a game. Screw the story, you're essentially punishing the player for continuing to play your game by taking away a tool that they might have spent a lot of game-time developing (mechanics-wise, I mean) and come to rely upon, and too often people just let this happen without some sort of way of dealing with it mechanically.
And even if they do address the situation mechanically, it often takes the player out of their immersion because of how clumsily the transition is made: look at how Cara/Krile/Kururu gets all of Galuf's powers in Final Fantasy 5 after his death.
People need to stop thinking about major decisions like this as if they're just story considerations: they are not. If you're going to take away a feature of the game from a player, you'd better give them seomthing back.
Anyway, there's no reason you can't just give that same role to an NPC. Make the NPC one who's always around and always involved in the story if need be, so that he feels like a Player Character even though you never get to control him, and there's no reason that death shouldn't be every bit as effective as a PC death would be story-wise, without any of the gameplay effect. Ninja Butterflies and Mission Control characters are perfect for this purpose. So are the PCs' mentor character, but this should be avoided because everyone already knows that the Obi-Wan is dead the moment they see him.
That said, story-wise the most effective character deaths are of the ones that both the creator and the audience loves, and anyone who's seen anything by Joss Whedon will have learned this pretty quickly....but overindulging in killing off the best characters(again: look at Joss Whedon) makes you predictable. "Man, I love this character so much! He must be doomed! I wonder how far into the story he'll survive?" is not something you want your audience to think--if anything, you want them to be mildly surprised by the loss.
And even if they do address the situation mechanically, it often takes the player out of their immersion because of how clumsily the transition is made: look at how Cara/Krile/Kururu gets all of Galuf's powers in Final Fantasy 5 after his death.
People need to stop thinking about major decisions like this as if they're just story considerations: they are not. If you're going to take away a feature of the game from a player, you'd better give them seomthing back.
Anyway, there's no reason you can't just give that same role to an NPC. Make the NPC one who's always around and always involved in the story if need be, so that he feels like a Player Character even though you never get to control him, and there's no reason that death shouldn't be every bit as effective as a PC death would be story-wise, without any of the gameplay effect. Ninja Butterflies and Mission Control characters are perfect for this purpose. So are the PCs' mentor character, but this should be avoided because everyone already knows that the Obi-Wan is dead the moment they see him.
That said, story-wise the most effective character deaths are of the ones that both the creator and the audience loves, and anyone who's seen anything by Joss Whedon will have learned this pretty quickly....but overindulging in killing off the best characters(again: look at Joss Whedon) makes you predictable. "Man, I love this character so much! He must be doomed! I wonder how far into the story he'll survive?" is not something you want your audience to think--if anything, you want them to be mildly surprised by the loss.
demondestiny
889
Yeah i do find that killing off a character in the story can be a good thing. Sure nobody wants to see a character die but it can make a little plot twist to the story or change the emotions between the main characters etc. Most gamers like this as it can bring some emotion to them when there favourite character get's killed.
Yeah, but Shakespeare didn't have to worry about upsetting game balance.
I think killing characters can be a very effective plot device, but not when it's done gratuitously or just for the sake of it. It has to be someone the player cares about to work more effectively, and I feel that it's impact is weakened when used too much.
As for who gets killed off, I would never kill off a playable character in the middle of a game. Important NPCs are okay, but not part of the player's effort/strategy. The only time I'd ever kill a playable character would be at the very end of the game. And even then, it'd probably be part of a bad ending and avoidable by different approaches.
I think killing characters can be a very effective plot device, but not when it's done gratuitously or just for the sake of it. It has to be someone the player cares about to work more effectively, and I feel that it's impact is weakened when used too much.
As for who gets killed off, I would never kill off a playable character in the middle of a game. Important NPCs are okay, but not part of the player's effort/strategy. The only time I'd ever kill a playable character would be at the very end of the game. And even then, it'd probably be part of a bad ending and avoidable by different approaches.
trance2
500
I've already addressed all the major issues in my game, at least, with the killing of a character. There's a clone character of him, he's a major player in the story, and his removal causes emotional conflict for quite a few characters. I think he's pretty well covered.
As for death in general, another thing to watch is that your "unable to fight/0HP" condition is NOT called "Death." Because then, when you can revive that character, it's kind of like the old cliché, "'Why Didn't They Just Use a Phoenix Down on Aeris, Mom?" (see The List of Game Clichés).
As for death in general, another thing to watch is that your "unable to fight/0HP" condition is NOT called "Death." Because then, when you can revive that character, it's kind of like the old cliché, "'Why Didn't They Just Use a Phoenix Down on Aeris, Mom?" (see The List of Game Clichés).
Ashramaru
39
Not so much for a Plot Twist, but I like how, if done correctly, it can effect other characters. Say, a Character you have played with since the beginning of the game, the lovable, funny guy who is introduced as a Protagonist is killed, in a grotesque and untimely way, what is your reaction. For me, if the game is longer than 10 Hours, and I've been playing with such a character...I would feel bad, however it has been a while since I felt in such a way. I don't know what RM games everyones been playing lately, but at the point I am in on Balmung Cycle, it appears as if one of the Protagonists allies Loki is slain in battle. For me, it was nothing big, mainly because he wasn't that important in my eyes, but I think the only way to bring about the emotional aspect is to really grab the players heart when introducing such a character, and keep in mind, the kind of guy whom you view as likable.
I'd actually argue that it'd be, at times, beneficial to kill off a character for the sake of gameplay (and not just the level 99 mentors or the cute, useless healer girl).
Most gamemakers don't have any balls when it comes to that, either because they have fallen in love with their creation (they don't want to because they like the character) or because it's inconvenient for game balance (boo hoo).
Events like this force the player to adapt to a new playstyle, which can create interesting scenarios. Just need to keep it in mind and make sure the player won't hate you too much for investing in the character - perhaps giving an award for doing so.
Most gamemakers don't have any balls when it comes to that, either because they have fallen in love with their creation (they don't want to because they like the character) or because it's inconvenient for game balance (boo hoo).
Events like this force the player to adapt to a new playstyle, which can create interesting scenarios. Just need to keep it in mind and make sure the player won't hate you too much for investing in the character - perhaps giving an award for doing so.
I really don't mind with player characters getting killed off unless you get someone to replace that character with similiar or better skills than the one who died or find a way so that character can be revived. The indie game Legion Saga 1, the commercial games Legend of the Dragoon, Chrono Trigger, and Chrono Cross are good examples of this.
Just an addendum to the whole losing character progress idea...
The player should never ever ever ever lose stats/items/skills/levels/whatever due to storyline changes imo. Even a lame way like FF5 works fine.
The player should never ever ever ever lose stats/items/skills/levels/whatever due to storyline changes imo. Even a lame way like FF5 works fine.
I didn't mind how Suikoden 1 handled it. You lost a character and his EXP but you could plop a level 1 character in your party and in three fights he'd be in reach of the rest of the group due to how the EXP was scaled. The only significant loss gameplay wise was the money spent upgrading the lost character's weapon. The rest of the equipment shows up in your inventory ready for use. There's also scores of other characters available to take the now open slot in your party, and the character lost wasn't the greatest anyways.
Plus its possible to get that character back at the end of the game. It does kinda cheapen the loss, but its nice to get him back :)
Plus its possible to get that character back at the end of the game. It does kinda cheapen the loss, but its nice to get him back :)
Shadowtext
120
author=Karsuman link=topic=1441.msg22687#msg22687 date=1215031791Forcing the player to adapt to a new playstyle in the middle of a game is generally a bad idea. For the same reason you don't want to have minigames that are required to progress, you don't want to have situations where the skills and/or effort that the player has learned or used up until this point in the game suddenly mean nothing.
Events like this force the player to adapt to a new playstyle, which can create interesting scenarios. Just need to keep it in mind and make sure the player won't hate you too much for investing in the character - perhaps giving an award for doing so.
It is kind of a bummer if a character say you've spent all your money on this character's weapons and strategy and then he dies in the story. If messes the whole rhythm I like for a Player Character to be lost like for example:
Jim and John are both wizards of the same class type
-If you decide to go through the cave
-Jim agrees and goes while John goes the other way
-You end up finding out John was killed
-If you decide to go through the mountains
-John agrees and goes while Jim goes the other way
-You end up finding out Jim was killed
Or something like that, you don't waste much of anything and you can still feel for the loss. Another good example if Zelos from Tales of Symphonia. If you choose one way Zelos says behind to fight you and you kill him and gain Kratos who fights the same as Zelos.
Likewise I you picked the other choice Zelos would help you late on and you would receive him.
Jim and John are both wizards of the same class type
-If you decide to go through the cave
-Jim agrees and goes while John goes the other way
-You end up finding out John was killed
-If you decide to go through the mountains
-John agrees and goes while Jim goes the other way
-You end up finding out Jim was killed
Or something like that, you don't waste much of anything and you can still feel for the loss. Another good example if Zelos from Tales of Symphonia. If you choose one way Zelos says behind to fight you and you kill him and gain Kratos who fights the same as Zelos.
Likewise I you picked the other choice Zelos would help you late on and you would receive him.
Ashramaru
39
I really like these responses they are "helping me out" so to speak with some new concepts. In terms of my own game I have been in the whole "Kill'em All" mentality. I am portraying a war-time scenario, and eliminating a Leveling System, however Skills and Weaponry could be a hindrance in terms of killing off specific characters. However lets depart from investment into Characters, which seems to be a heavy Con in killing off a Character, and look more into Progression. Sure killing off a Character is a bitch to the Player, but would you like to see Character's effected by death of an ally. Effected to such a point that you feel as if the Character is sad, his actions, his dialog are all scripted differently depending on his relationship to another.
Of course it would be good to see a character affected by the death of another! What I hate is when games do the opposite of this, and the remaining characters go on with the story never showing any grief or emotion from what just happened.
Ashramaru
39
One Scenario that becomes present in my new game is the Death of many Loved Ones. While it takes place in a War Setting, and many of the Characters are soldiers, when your best friend dies, you know you would start thinking, "Whats the fucking point...we've been fighting for 10 Years now, and no gain, fuck this". I mean sure you could take it the opposite and view your friends death as a sacrifice, but one thing I find important are the Emotion States of the Characters. One guy could be like oh well, but you could have another guy completely break down, with his best friend being his only living Loved One. I know in Gundam Seed, when Muh(sp?) LaFlaga was killed, a tear came to my eye. It may sound, "Gay as Hell", "Stupid", and a variety of other names, however the level of Development featured in Gundam Seed, made you break down when ever one Side Character was killed. I want to create such emotion, is that impossible to do with a game, can you really feel sad when a pixelated sprite is blown to bits, or cut in half. I for one find these funny if done out of the blue, but with Character Development, and Story is it possible you could make your audience feel sad when a Character is killed?
Jabbo
140
If you create a good character, it doesn't matter what medium you create them in. If you're telling your story right, then the audience IS the protagonist, and should feel the exact same emotions that the protagonist does. I mean they don't have to break down into tears when the protagonist does at the death of a friend, but they should at least be thinking "Oh god, they just... they... they're gone." All of the potential for the future with that character that they were looking forward to is extinguished in an instant.
So no, I don't think that RPGs are incapable of expressing emotion. Just try not to let storyline get in the way of gameplay, and try not let gameplay get in the way of storyline either. You've got to emphasize the moment of death, and draw it out. Music is never more important. And for the love of god don't put in a battle immediately after the character dies.
So no, I don't think that RPGs are incapable of expressing emotion. Just try not to let storyline get in the way of gameplay, and try not let gameplay get in the way of storyline either. You've got to emphasize the moment of death, and draw it out. Music is never more important. And for the love of god don't put in a battle immediately after the character dies.
McDohl
120
I think it's important to realize that there's two different things going on with a story-related PC character death.
1. The story says that character dies.
2. The game says that character is no longer playable.
It's important to differentiate that, because I can think of a few examples where PCs simply become unaccessible after a point. Kiefer from DQ7 comes to mind, as does Jowy from Suikoden 2.
When you look at story-driven character death, it's important to ask why it was necessary. Moveover, if the death is in Aeris-like terms, you also have to ask yourself why the norm of "you're a bad guy, my party fights bad guys until we fall unconscious" was suddenly no longer applicable.
When you view it like that, you can see how the two ends (gameplay versus story) are at odds with each other. This story element you're introducing, PC story death, needs to be potent enough to a point where the player is willing to forgive the loss of the time investment into said PC. That point is simply unattainable with some gamers.
If the answer is, "it's really important to the story I'm trying to tell", then I'd ask you if it's really worth having a player sacrifice that time over. If the answer is, "well, not much will be lost in terms of stats/exp/whathaveyou", then I'd question what the point would be of having that character as a PC in the first place.
1. The story says that character dies.
2. The game says that character is no longer playable.
It's important to differentiate that, because I can think of a few examples where PCs simply become unaccessible after a point. Kiefer from DQ7 comes to mind, as does Jowy from Suikoden 2.
When you look at story-driven character death, it's important to ask why it was necessary. Moveover, if the death is in Aeris-like terms, you also have to ask yourself why the norm of "you're a bad guy, my party fights bad guys until we fall unconscious" was suddenly no longer applicable.
When you view it like that, you can see how the two ends (gameplay versus story) are at odds with each other. This story element you're introducing, PC story death, needs to be potent enough to a point where the player is willing to forgive the loss of the time investment into said PC. That point is simply unattainable with some gamers.
If the answer is, "it's really important to the story I'm trying to tell", then I'd ask you if it's really worth having a player sacrifice that time over. If the answer is, "well, not much will be lost in terms of stats/exp/whathaveyou", then I'd question what the point would be of having that character as a PC in the first place.
