[tcaudilllg]

Having a really stressful week this week. A bunch of unexpected things happening. So I'm going to unwind by talking about the evolution of game stories.

Notice I said "evolution", as opposed to history. I'm more concerned with identifying the pivotal points in game evolution than the bit-by-bit minutiae. Actually, at this time it is impossible for a non-Japanese speaker (like myself) to do a history of game storytelling, seeing as not all the games have been translated to English yet. (nor will they ever) However the evolution is plain enough from decade to decade, and we have at this point a pretty clear view of how the Japanese side developed.

Game stories appear, since the late 1980s, to have developed alongside animation as a factor of cultural zeitgeist, which can be characterized as transition from Modernism to Post-Modernism. In the Modernist epoch, stories centered on national duty and broad community themes -- the protagonist was motivated not by self-interest but by community interest, and was barely developed except to the point of actually becoming a vessel by which to convey the writer's key argument. As such, Modernist protagonists typically do not demonstrate strong self-analytical skills. They convey critique, their sole purpose being to guide the reader towards a singular revelation that the writer's perspective was the only correct one as such, the cure for all the world's ills.

(Before I continue, I'd like to opine that I although I know this forum to be not the best place to have this discussion (story section around here is pretty dead!), I'm not sure where else to do it).

In the Modernist era, external conflicts were always defined by bad guys vs good guys, with "cops and robbers" being the central theme. The bad guy was a criminal who broke the law; the good guy was a champion of social order. This was an evolution from the "hero of the people defeats legislative feats" conflict of earlier times (which itself followed from the feudalistic "good guy uses superior might to defeat tyranny", made possible by a sort of equilibrium that was obtained for some time at the height of the Modernist era. Cops and robbers were, of course, also simplistic concepts that children could understand.

In the early 80s, "cops and robbers" evolved to "good and evil". This was apparently an effect of post-modernist investigation into the nature of individuals and understanding of what their views actually were, rather than what they "should be". By the time antisocial personality disorder was entered into the Diagnostic Standards Manual, society was quite convinced that some people were evil "to the core" and the modern myth of the "super villain" was born.

By the 1990s, a debate had emerged over whether all antisocial personalities were equal. The mid 80s saw the introduction of delusional "insane" characters, which were discovered to be suitable alternatives to antisocial characters. Then, with the emergence of complicated "war stories", politics gradually became a factor. The "Virtues" age of good vs evil gave way to the "Values" age of clearly defined, strongly motivated characters who defined their society as much as their society defined them. This was a pivotal moment in history, all things considered... for the first time the "values defining class" had come under scrutiny, the outcome of which has yet to be decided.... In the 2000s, the "Values" age gave way to the "Moderation" age, which primarily concerned itself with teleological characterizations. (we're still in the midst of this).

At this point, the gamut of perspectives has mostly been run already. Thousands of characters have been explored, and although there are millions (billions?) more possibilities, . The next apparent direction is characterized by one of two directions, "blamelessness" and "Inhibition". I would characterize blamelessness as villainy by situation, either by dissociative identity (which has been explored somewhat already) or being in a situation which requires a person to do things that go against what they believe is right, but they observe nonetheless as a matter of practical necessity. Such characters might well be protagonists if the circumstances were different.... The problem with such plotlines is that they become exceedingly dark and as such, exposure to them might be traumatic. Good people have chosen to do terrible things throughout history, and continue to do so.... Still, audiences may not appreciate putting themselves in the shoes of a guy who kills someone because they "have to". (although... GaBranth?) Another alternative is "inhibition", which would cast as villain the likes of Abraham Lincoln or Jesus. This avenue is oriented around "falls from grace" as a factor of people who have limited capacity for personal growth trying to inhibit the growth of others. (a smidgen of this was explored in the Final Fantasy II PSP special dungeon, and CT's Schala is another apparent example).

Yet another road is "volitional damnation". Volitional damnation is characterized by psychologically healthy people choosing to commit acts "beyond evil" by realizing their deepest, darkest selves. (hentai -- would you believe it! -- has explored this theme to some degree).

A "Judgment Error" theme would explore antagonism through maladaptation. For example, consider how a president's own imperfect nature can lead them to create perfectly human errors which imperil their people.

I have a feeling that none of these will claim dominance however. No, I know what the future holds.

[Hajo]

While I feel uncertain if I actually saw this kind of evolution in heroes and game stories, I want to say thanks for this essay. It sure helped to understand the different types of heroes, or characters in a broader view, which had been used to drive stories, or were offered to the player to identify with.

I'd like to ask, if you can give definitions of "modernism" and "post-modernism", and how they are linked to the characters types, the character options that you outlined?

[tcaudilllg]

Modernism was the general idea that a person was bound by service and duty to their society, and that they came somewhat second to it. Post-modernism was the discussion of the individual as an actor independent from society, and even defining of it. Modernism is characterized by references to "man" and universal themes; post-modernism is characterized by attention to individual needs and beliefs, the idea that society owes as much to the individual as the individual owes to society. The switching point appears to have been the 1960s, when there was observed a point, particularly in the civil rights movement, where being respectful of individual needs would pay dividends for society. Therefore post-modernism began by encompassing modernism and expanding upon it, but eventually split off at some point in the 1970s, probably due to the Vietnam war and growing distrust of society itself. I think the "anti-hero" was the first sign that the two philosophies had schizmed, in that the anti-hero possessed a conflict with society in some way.

Until post-modernism emerged, writers were typically too wrapped up in commenting on their society, and pushing their own ideologies, to develop their characters. Even Phantom of the Opera is a critique of superficiality, although it is a splendid character study in its own right. Perhaps its author tried to make of it something more, but even if they did, they don't seem to prevailed against literary critics who were determined to make use of it in a Modernist mode. Modernism ate up and consumed anything which tried to fight it, so there was little motivation to reach beyond it until the civil rights era. I imagine that Hitler may have played a very strong role in the decline of Modernism, also, particularly in that his autobiography allowed him to make himself into a real life modernist hero. This was something of an apocalypse for the modernist ideal which drove home the point that there was something very wrong with modernism itself.

The rise of post-modernism permitted discussion about individual beliefs and ideals, auspiciously to the end of improving society's relationship to the individual (the "society is to blame" movement), which in return would improve the individual's relationship to society. Until post-modernism, attaining this knowledge was not a justified vocation: modernism's notion of individuality was distinctly Freudian, holding that there were an endless number of ways for people to be different and that as such, individual actions and beliefs were unpredictable in a constantly changing world. The psychiatry movement changed all that, as did the rise of domestic terrorism. Thanks to terror, people all of sudden had a desire to "know" what was going on in other people's heads, particularly when they were agreed that some things absolutely would not be sacrificed in the name of satisfying certain complaints. At the very least, they needed to know what kinds of kooks to expect -- it became a matter of practical and emotional concern. The discovery of anti-psychotics, along with twin studies, persuaded most psychiatrists that hereditary factors were the primary cause of schizophrenia, challenging classical belief in free agency, until it became an article of faith whether or not personality disorders were themselves a factor of heredity. (the current belief is that abnormal neurocircuitry produces equally abnormal notions of personal integrity and self-concept)

Tezuka may have been the last animator/storyteller to use the modernist method. From the 90s on, character-driven development appears to have been the norm. Interestingly, we are ourselves living in a "post-modern modern" generation where duty to society is rekindled, but in the vise of having been shaped by post-modernist philosophy. The world has been changed for us, and now we are trying to change the world as a reflection of how it changed us. We are the living critique of post-modernism.

The era of post-modernist investigation permitted the inquiry into individual motives which enabled an answer to the question of whether people can be, at core, evil. From there, some writers sought to understand if a person's values can themselves be evil, even if the person who holds them does not have an antisocial temperament. The general agreement was that if a person's values lead directly to the development of unbalanced beliefs (particularly ideologies whose fundamental premises lacked generally convincing evidence), then in a position of leadership that individual could be a threat to their society. The now familiar archetype of the "insane villain" rests of this presumption, and the "tragic hero as antagonist" followed after.

[tcaudilllg]

As the antagonists evolved, so did the protagonists. In the beginning there was Ultima. Ultima offered no real internal conflicts to speak of until about Ultima VI. However even then, the conflict was the player's, not the lead's. (although I suppose you could argue that the player WAS the lead). The earliest semblance of real protagonist development is evident in Dragon Quest. At the end of the game, the player is given a choice of either joining the Dragon Lord or fighting him. Choosing to fight the Dragon Lord in this context invokes Jungian precepts: the Dragon Lord, once the external antagonist, is now a vesicle for the protagonist's own self-projections, in that the Dragon Lord has tempted the player and forced them to encounter the "shadow" of their own fear and self-doubt. To give into the Dragon Lord then becomes a mark not only of cowardice, but of becoming like the Dragon Lord himself. The Dragon Lord creates an internal conflict for the hero, making the resolution of the hero's conflict contingent on the resolution of the external conflict posed by the Dragon Lord. In reality, the situation is remarkably complex in that no less than three conflicts hang in the balance, the conflicts between the Dragon Lord and Alefgard; between the Dragon Lord and the protagonist; and finally the internal identity conflict created by the Dragon Lord's temptation. When the Dragon Lord is defeated, the Light Orb appears as a classic symbol of individuation, a treasure whose possession is a testament to the will, wisdom, and fortitude of its bearer. Although a real object, the projection of analytical themes onto the Light Orb is uncomplicated enough to carry a "signature" of real development, however codified it may have been.

[tcaudilllg]

Final Fantasy II was the first game to offer an evolving external conflict. Before Final Fantasy II, the setting of the game was always "bad" and it did not improve. In the course of Final Fantasy II, the situation goes from bad, to better; then stable; then to worse; to recovery; and then back to bad (dire even) before resolving itself for last time. Throughout it all, the characters barely grow at all. This was the first game to make use of plot-scripted character death, and as such the first to (touch upon) the psychological intricacies of self-sacrifice. Character death was not new to anime: it had been a constant since the days of Devil Man. Devil Man was designed by Go Nagai, who was and is notorious for pushing the boundaries of modern fiction. However suicide, even for a good cause, was still not a common topic in the 1980s, and it is for the volition of these characters that Final Fantasy II is notable. Not even Transformers' Optimus Prime had chosen his own death, although he very much knew the risks when he went in to battle Megatron that fateful day at Autobot City.

Final Fantasy IV has become widely reputed for its Campbellian overtones. It was the first game that I know of to have actually verbalized an attitude change by the protagonist, something that has since become a staple of the industry. If your game's protagonist doesn't have an attitude change somewhere along the line, it's boring! It runs around and around and doesn't actually do anything! Attitude changes, especially when self-willed, are indicators of character growth and development. In fact, it's become common to derisively refer to games whose characters do not "evolve" over the course of the game as lacking development. There is a certain "high" a person gets from watching another not only wrestle with, but also resolve their inner demons. It is a very exciting and fulfilling moment, which brings a sense of closure to the character's previous development and allows them to start over, in a sense. Attitude change (or failure to change) can also be used as a pivot around which a given character's demise can be scripted into the plot, particularly when their permanent removal is important for game play purposes. (as was the case in Final Fantasy VII, where Aeris' removal improved the difficulty of the game and, no less, rescued it from the abyss).

[tcaudilllg]

The Good vs Evil age is something we can all remember pretty easily. Evil was identified with sociopathy, and good was identified with society. No clearer is the distinction than in the cartoon epics of the 80s, although quests to defeat "mad, evil wizards" were long a hallmark of computer RPGs. Everyone can understand "good vs evil", even kids. Modern notions of evil evolved when it was surmised that groups of criminals could arrange themselves into "leagues" which were sustained by common goals and mutual respect. While Skeletor was little more than the boss of a magical Mafia, Megatron went so far as to unify the malcontents of his planet into an ideological faction. This was an improvement over the "Sauron" model, where one evil mind controlled everything. In Transformers Megatron's Decepticons are seen frequently arguing with him. They defer to him out of choice, and Megatron is aware of this. He demands obedience but only because he is confident of success, as he feel pressure to justify himself before his peers.

One characteristic of the villains of this period is that although they are callous and cruel, they are also rational. Their plans seem to have a reasonable chance of success, and are foiled only because they underestimate the ability of others. Megatron often developed effective plans that were thwarted only by the tendencies of his selfish Decepticons to fight among themselves; certainly Optimus Prime's flawed, if noble, sense of leadership gave Megatron many opportunities to succeed. The "insane bad guy" archetype didn't appear till the second half of the 1980s, with Galvatron being a notable example.

Amidst the uniformity of the Good vs Evil age, there were glimmers of deeper, more complex characterizations. War anime, such as Mobile Suit Gundam, explored belligerence, both as an attitude and as a trait. In 1969, Tezuka, at age 40, completed his mid-life crisis cycle, and had a corresponding attitude change. In that year, he published a series of short stories on the topic of mortality, laying the foundation for the treatment of tragedy in manga and anime. In 1977, Leiji Matsumoto released Galaxy Express 999, which was the first anime to feature an altruistic co-star (Maetel). Matsumoto made altruism an important theme of his works. It was discovered that altruistic people have a particular distaste for selfishness, which lead to the formalization of the G vs E conflict. As attitude change became an increasingly important theme of plot development, G vs E began to show cracks. Even justified expressions of self-interest, it was shown, could incur an altruist's wrath, and as such a protagonist had as much to fear from the well meaning as from the ill meaning. In his final work, Tezuka, who, it was revealed, was an altruist himself, relented of his life-long anti-partisan values and wrote a final, flaming chapter of The Phoenix in which he portrayed theocracy as an intrinsically dangerous political ideal. This was his final legacy and the beginning of the Values revolution.

--

Edits: corrected title of Galaxy Express 999.

[BadMrBox]

I was about to mention Galvatron until I saw that you allready had done so :).
_________________

[tcaudilllg]

On the gaming side of the equation, the Values age began with Langrisser II (never released in the U.S.). Values age plots are characterized not by a conflict of ethics, but of beliefs. Protagonists are sensible and fair-minded in their beliefs, the same being essential qualities not only of a hero, but of a ruler; the antagonist is less sensible and not as fair-minded, and as a direct consequence goes "too far" despite having the best interests of their society at heart. The antagonist is like to raise some good, meaningful points, and is generally sympathetic. However because the protagonist disagrees with the antagonist, the antagonist cannot see the good in them and as such, loses faith in their competence. The antagonist resolves that they need ultimate power to prevail over the protagonist's obstinance, despite the likelihood that they will either be unable to control this power or misuse it. The protagonist is thus called upon to protect society by defeating the antagonist and thwarting their scheme.

The Values age appears to have advented around 1990 in games. In anime, it advented much earlier, around the time of Galaxy Express 999. In that story, a good queen is forced into damnation by circumstance, and made evil. The "good ruler becomes evil due to weak mindedness" mechanic became a standard trope, being used in multiple game plots by the early 90s. Very little if any attention was paid to conflicts of values, perhaps owing to the Cold War atmosphere. (the reigning ideology was that differences over values were to be dealt with by tirelessly producing evidence for your view, while submitting before the prevailing view whether you agreed with it or not. The alternative was a risk of national disunity, which was to be avoided). A plethora of philosophies and "-isms" unleashed by post-modernism greatly enriched people's ideas of what views could be held, but left them grasping for understanding of what they could actually agree on. People knew who they were and who they weren't, but couldn't understand each other. To understand another might mean that even people who thought of themselves as well-intentioned might have to fight one another if they couldn't agree. A scary thought, but one that has been deeply considered over the past 20 years.

The values revolution first appeared in tactical RPGs. Langrisser II, for example, features a Napoleon-esque leader who creates an empire from the strength of his beliefs alone. At the end of the game, it is revealed that this leader, Bernhart, was only a soldier when he grew sick of the wars associated with feudalism and resolved instead to unite the many fiefs under one rule, thus enabling him to squelch by force any conflict which might arise between them. This was a very similar sentiment to that which Napoleon held when he conquered Europe. However just as happened with Napoleon, Bernhart's ambition awakens the dormant sense of nationalism which lies in the hearts of the leaders of the fiefs. The game's plot revolves around collectivism vs individualism, with the twist of smaller collectives defending their individual identities against an engulfing group which denies their relevance. At the end of the story, Bernhart discloses his reasons to the protagonists, who acknowledge the validity of his arguments if not his solutions. The lead character, Erwin, is permitted to reign over the continent as its king, with all the other leaders agreeing to recognize his right to rule as the heir of Baldea, the last kingdom to unify the continent. Erwin's decision to rule with the consent of the governed is a demonstration not only of superior judgment, but also fair-mindedness and eclecticism: he is willing to acknowledge the valid points of even his critics, and this is the true measure of his stature as leader.

[Hajo]

I want to say "Thanks" for your essay on modernism and post modernism. I have never looked at computer games from such a point of view, well, the story heavy jRPGs where such might be more visible completely escaped me anyways, since they were big when I had either no suitable device to play or was interested in other things.

Very interesting to see that the changes in society and beliefs, also reflects in the way computer games are designed and presented. I guess I had a very simple view on computer games till now.

[Hajo]

[tcaudilllg]

True, that. I admit, I've not read many fiction books. Writing these posts has helped me realize how far back the history of character literature goes.

[tcaudilllg]

Computer game storytelling tends to be oriented around cultural identities. This is a consequence of the character generation system's flexibility. You can't develop characters to a great degree when their traits are variable; unless, that is, you put in a lot of effort.

[tcaudilllg]

"I know what the future holds."

What does the future hold?

The future is an exploration of the meaning of the existence of people who have information processing disorders. Of the personalities which choose to become villainous. There have been hints of this in RPGs throughout the 2k era (for example, the villain of Ys VI laments that he was "unlucky", while two antagonists of Sword of Mana lament that they "could not be saved"), however nothing explicit. It is a suggestion framed in code for the interested.

It would seem to me that exploring the explicit possibility of dealing with characters who have processing disorders -- who for example, are unable to see how belief in democracy or free will can bring anything but destruction (Ghaleon, anyone?) -- is an unexplored avenue in storytelling. Complicated, yes but, nonetheless interesting because it invites a higher level of self-awareness and responsibility. Although there is risk for melodrama, there also appears opportunity for general social renewal.

[tcaudilllg]

I've researched the topic further, and made a discovery. There are two views on pathological antagonists in literature, where for each there is a complementary perspective on the protagonist. Antagonists can be either primarily "unethical", or primarily "insane". Early antagonists were a little of both, where modern antagonists (of the last two decades), tend to be either mostly unethical OR mostly insane. Bernhardt of Langrisser II, and Wilhelm of Xenosaga, are examples of insane antagonists who are not unethical. Wild Arms 3 presents five major antagonists, 2 unethical (Janus and Beatrice), 3 insane (the prophets), and 1 unethical and insane (Zeigfried). Protagonists are marked by traits of ethical behavior, or sanity. It's often the case that unstable characters become allied to a leading protagonist (who is usually both remarkably ethical and reasonable) by means of plot devices that are broad enough to omit their true potential for insanity.

Among those skilled in the art, proficiency at designing specific character types is related to political perspective. Well-designed antagonists are primarily developed by left-leaning character designers, because right-leaners tend to be turned off by negative personality traits. Right-leaning designers tend to design bland, simplistic antagonists and straight-shooting protagonists. Anti-heros (like Cloud Strife) tend to be designed by left-leaners. Right-leaning designers tend to make their characters 2-dimensional (Fire Emblem), while left-leaning designers tend to focus more on 3-dimensional characters (such as Golbez and Gabranth in Final Fantasy).