Thought blurb - Why do video games rely on the same character?
So, this is something that I've been wondering about for some time now. I've seen it all through video games and, for a while, just accepted it that that was the way things went. However, after reading books, being exposed to multiple forms of literature, movies, video games, etc and generally watching how things progressed, a thought occurred to me. If people are running out of ideas of what to do with the franchise, why not revive the franchise by introducing a new character and focusing on that character instead? The gameplay style doesn't have to change, Mario showed us that with focus on Luigi or Yoshi instead of Mario, though sometimes a gameplay change can be a welcome addition as well, if done right.
I think the primary reason that most people don't expect to see a change of character is because most fans become attached to the character for multiple, varying reasons. There's not a lot of reason to change a character once its become the icon of the franchise, I suppose, but look at Final Fantasy, for instance. The characters change all of the time. It's part of why each Final Fantasy is capable of being graded on its own merits as opposed to having a judgment based on it being a sequel. Granted, there have been sequels to some of the Final Fantasy games, as well as spin-offs. However, most of these still focus on the core characters, rather than introducing a new side of things.
I was brought to thinking about this by recently reexploring the Half-Life expansion packs: opposing force and blue shift. Both of these explore the same story that is occurring in Half-Life from completely different perspectives. The same events occur, and there is still fan service to the original by showing events that occurred in the original from a different set of eyes, but the fact remains that these are takes on the same story from different perspectives.
So why can't we have another Metroid game that focuses on something other than Samus Aran's exploits? Why not have the main character be a bounty hunter that is literally there for his/her own gain, as opposed to helping save the galaxy? Why not have a team of galactic federation troopers in the mix, done better than how Metroid Prime: Federation Force did it? Maybe we can see things from the perspective of a Chozo warrior for once and see how their downfall came to be from the eyes of one of their own?
The answer always come back around to "icon" status. Samus Aran is who people expect to see be the main protagonist in anything labeled "Metroid". When she isn't, like with Metroid Prime: Federation Force, people get upset. Solid Snake was the icon for Metal Gear Solid, so when we got teased with being Snake for all of Metal Gear Solid 2, only for Raiden to take the scene, many people simply turned away and labeled it the "black sheep" of the series. It was still a great game, perhaps even the best of the classic style of Metal Gear games, but the switch in character really put people off, myself included initially. Even when people are hoping for a new character, though, games can sometimes kick themselves off with strange reasons. Splinter Cell: Blacklist was an opportunity to introduce a brand new protagonist, instead of using Sam Fisher. For whatever reason, they decided to keep Sam Fisher in charge, despite the fact that he was getting too old by Conviction to do some of the stuff he was used to and, since Blacklist is set sometime later, age should catch up to the man eventually.
The biggest one that got me wondering what a certain Nintendo was thinking was Breath of the Wild. It's a bold new step for the series and, with the effeminate looking protagonist, people wondered if Princess Zelda was going to take to the fray. Perhaps something terrible had happened to Link and now it was up to Zelda to finish what had been done? I remember reading the interview and noticing the statement, "But then what would Link be doing?" That got me wondering if there even needs to BE a Link type figure? Why should there have to be? The Legend of Zelda has plenty of opportunity to have a protagonist outside of the iconic "boy in green" that is void of all personality outside of blindly charging into danger to save the world.
It's something worth considering is all I'm after. The risk of changing characters is the loss of the icon and the failing of the game, meaning lots of money down the drain. In an economy where a failed game is disastrous, there's little room for mistakes on the part of major companies. Game companies cant't risk nullifying their icons, unless there's a specific reason for their games to pick someone else. When reactions are also as severe as the small changes to beloved icons, like in Devil May Cry 4's case, there's also little reason to do anything to the icon once it's been established. It's unfortunate that there's so little room to experiment and so little willingness on the part of the consumers, it would seem, to allow for experimentation in today's gaming, but I suppose that's the way of the world and I'm...kind of falling out of the whole "wanting things to stay the same" anymore personally. I know people who aren't, and I can't argue with their reasons why, so I'll leave this at what it is: a small thought blurb from a random person.
I think the primary reason that most people don't expect to see a change of character is because most fans become attached to the character for multiple, varying reasons. There's not a lot of reason to change a character once its become the icon of the franchise, I suppose, but look at Final Fantasy, for instance. The characters change all of the time. It's part of why each Final Fantasy is capable of being graded on its own merits as opposed to having a judgment based on it being a sequel. Granted, there have been sequels to some of the Final Fantasy games, as well as spin-offs. However, most of these still focus on the core characters, rather than introducing a new side of things.
I was brought to thinking about this by recently reexploring the Half-Life expansion packs: opposing force and blue shift. Both of these explore the same story that is occurring in Half-Life from completely different perspectives. The same events occur, and there is still fan service to the original by showing events that occurred in the original from a different set of eyes, but the fact remains that these are takes on the same story from different perspectives.
So why can't we have another Metroid game that focuses on something other than Samus Aran's exploits? Why not have the main character be a bounty hunter that is literally there for his/her own gain, as opposed to helping save the galaxy? Why not have a team of galactic federation troopers in the mix, done better than how Metroid Prime: Federation Force did it? Maybe we can see things from the perspective of a Chozo warrior for once and see how their downfall came to be from the eyes of one of their own?
The answer always come back around to "icon" status. Samus Aran is who people expect to see be the main protagonist in anything labeled "Metroid". When she isn't, like with Metroid Prime: Federation Force, people get upset. Solid Snake was the icon for Metal Gear Solid, so when we got teased with being Snake for all of Metal Gear Solid 2, only for Raiden to take the scene, many people simply turned away and labeled it the "black sheep" of the series. It was still a great game, perhaps even the best of the classic style of Metal Gear games, but the switch in character really put people off, myself included initially. Even when people are hoping for a new character, though, games can sometimes kick themselves off with strange reasons. Splinter Cell: Blacklist was an opportunity to introduce a brand new protagonist, instead of using Sam Fisher. For whatever reason, they decided to keep Sam Fisher in charge, despite the fact that he was getting too old by Conviction to do some of the stuff he was used to and, since Blacklist is set sometime later, age should catch up to the man eventually.
The biggest one that got me wondering what a certain Nintendo was thinking was Breath of the Wild. It's a bold new step for the series and, with the effeminate looking protagonist, people wondered if Princess Zelda was going to take to the fray. Perhaps something terrible had happened to Link and now it was up to Zelda to finish what had been done? I remember reading the interview and noticing the statement, "But then what would Link be doing?" That got me wondering if there even needs to BE a Link type figure? Why should there have to be? The Legend of Zelda has plenty of opportunity to have a protagonist outside of the iconic "boy in green" that is void of all personality outside of blindly charging into danger to save the world.
It's something worth considering is all I'm after. The risk of changing characters is the loss of the icon and the failing of the game, meaning lots of money down the drain. In an economy where a failed game is disastrous, there's little room for mistakes on the part of major companies. Game companies cant't risk nullifying their icons, unless there's a specific reason for their games to pick someone else. When reactions are also as severe as the small changes to beloved icons, like in Devil May Cry 4's case, there's also little reason to do anything to the icon once it's been established. It's unfortunate that there's so little room to experiment and so little willingness on the part of the consumers, it would seem, to allow for experimentation in today's gaming, but I suppose that's the way of the world and I'm...kind of falling out of the whole "wanting things to stay the same" anymore personally. I know people who aren't, and I can't argue with their reasons why, so I'll leave this at what it is: a small thought blurb from a random person.
Comments
Post a Comment