Emotional, engaging storyline and characters

[Alex06]

The Idea

Having an emotional and engaging story requires the characters to be just as emotional and engaging. They have to interact face-to-face with the player, but not be too emotionless nor too over-dramatic - basically, to avoid stereotypes and the "cheesiness" that results from them. An interactive, emotionally engaging, multi-layered storyline will draw players back into replaying the campaign over and over. Different outcomes to a story can help even more.

Description

Full-motion video was always an important part of C&Cs of past. Some might say, Alex, why do you ask for FMVs in Generals? Well, Zero Hour had them, for once, so it’s not that far-fetched, and they are a great way to engage the player into the game. Now, as we know, Generals 2 uses Frostbite 2, which has realistic graphics. Now, that could be a good reason to forego FMVs. However, it would be at least interesting to have the kind of acting and full-motion videos we’d see in past C&Cs done in-game, like with StarCraft II, but with the facial complexity and realism of L. A. Noire's characters or those from the upcoming PS3 exclusive titled "The Last of Us".

BioWare’s always been about having an engaging, emotional story. As a result, Generals would have to go the way of C&Cs 1 through 4 and Red Alert 1 through 3, rather than Generals, Zero Hour or Renegade.

Renegade’s main character seemed to lack emotion and, well, character. Generals had a generic voice, not unlike the “EVA” of past C&C games, give orders to the player. Zero Hour changed that, but did not come close to the engaging, emotional interaction of Tiberian and Red Alert games. We had FMVs, but they were mainly news reports. We did not engage in interaction with the characters in FMVs, they merely recited to us a piece of news. It was merely a one-way, objective conversation. Generals, as a whole, seemed to stay away from the idea of having two-way emotional conversations. Even Generals Challenge, which was more interactive than the campaigns of Generals and Zero Hour, seemed to be based on one-way conversations; Enemy Generals had cheesy lines that served merely as taunts to the player. Additionally, those characters never talked to you face-to-face. You never saw the emotion on their faces when they were talking to you, and never could feel anything for them, be it admiration, respect or hate. They basically never made you feel anything towards them.

Even when there were characters, such as Colonel Burton, Dr. Thrax, The GLA General, Prince Kassad and Black Lotus, none of them interacted with the player. They merely talked to their forces or said something generic so you can recognize them apart from other troops. You were basically told by a generic electronic voice agent to simply lead them or protect them, but never did they interact with you nor tell you, face-to-face, in a cinematic, “protect me, we have to get out of here if we want our plans to bear fruit” or anything of the sort.

This is where Generals 2 should improve. Whether we get FMVs with live action, or realistic in-game cinematics, it would be easier to engage the player emotionally if they had characters talking to them, such as when Kane gives you orders and confides in you in Tiberian Dawn, Tiberium Wars and Kane’s Wrath. You play a character in the game, and the other characters interact with you; You are not just “the player”. You are not disconnected from the characters and what is happening. Some might think this detracts from the larger conflict. However, it wouldn’t be a problem, if simply the larger conflict affected the characters, and the commander/general/terrorist cell leader interacted with these characters and got a chance to feel their own emotions about the entire situation.

There is no need to have cheesy or over-dramatic characters like the wife of C&C4 (which might not go well with players that are married or not ***ually attracted to women). That should at the most be an optional choice, like Commander Shepard’s military background in Mass Effect. The director and the writers should aim for realistic characters rather than over-dramatic characters such as those in C&C4. Marcion in Kane’s Wrath, Ajay, General Granger and Redmond Boyle in C&C3 and Kane in Tiberian Sun and Tiberium Wars are good examples. Characters that are over-the-top, such as Dr. Thrax in Zero Hour, Eva & Tanya in RA3, Tanya in RA2, Kane and Lilly in C&C4, Alexa in KW, McNeil in Tiberian Sun and Kilian Qatar in C&C3 are too satirical or show too much emotion for their role. Leaders need to be objective, not complete badasses, absolute idiots, internet trolls or emotional messes. It is especially shameful when all if not most women tend to turn into emotional messes. The writers should accommodate the characters to be emotional and interactive with the player, but there’s no necessity to go over-the-top to make them interactive and emotional. Movies do not usually do so, and it is why sometimes games are looked down upon; there are far too many stereotypes.

It would also be interesting if there were some kind of moral choices, which could affect your faction’s alliances, affiliation, missions and perhaps even the ending of the game, as BioWare is known for such things.

A good, though perhaps badly-written example for Generals 2 that incorporates my suggestions, would resemble the following:
"- Hey, General, they killed our friends, our families, we can't just stand here and wait for orders from someone we don't even know might still be alive or not!
- I agree, soldier, but we must remain objective on this matter. / We cannot allow our feelings to override our objectivity; we are defenders of society and preservers of freedom. / Absolutely, let’s kill these *******s. "

Finally, it would be good to look for actors who have played military roles and tend to get into character. It wouldn’t be fair to look for unknowns because we do not know them and we have no stereotype of them and because they cost significantly less. Actors with experience tend to do well. While it is not necessary to look for Hollywood celebrity actors such as George Clooney or Tom Cruise, it would very well be easy to look for actors who can get into character and enjoy doing so, without prejudice towards the script or the fact it is a video game. Actors such as Avery Brooks, Jennifer Hale, Robert Clotworthy, Rose Byrne, Jeremy Renner, Glenn Close, Tymothy Olyphant, Laurence Fishburne, Alan Tudyk, Ed Norton, Lance Henriksen and Glenn Morshower could all probably fit well into Command & Conquer.

It is not, I believe, the actors who are mainly to blame for cheesy lines, so unknown actors will not necessarily fix the issue, as we have seen with C&C4. It is especially the writing and filming that is problematic, thus one could say too much green-screen, a lack of chemistry between actors, the writers and the director are all at fault for this.


P.S. - It would also be interesting if no character is particularly vilified, sort of like what C&C4 tried to do.

Pros

- Immersion; the player feels like an integral part of the story. He gets a sense of accomplishment and feels like he is part of the story.

- The game might be more successful to die-hard C&C fans who did not enjoy Generals and plan to pass up on the sequel.

- The possibility of setting a standard in compelling story-telling in an RTS, a genre which lacks it dearly, and for BioWare to make use of its talent in story-telling.

Cons

- Might detract away from missions and players who want to "get to the action". Especially if there is a morality system; skipping it is hard because the mission choices and ending might be tied to it. A solution would be to do a "replay mission" after the campaign is finished or even a different mode, similar to Generals Challenge, which has no story.

- Could over-complicate the storyline and take longer to complete the game.

[Banshee]

I agree with everything you said, Alex.

One of the main features that made the first Command & Conquer game become successful was the presence of strong characters like Kane. Kane interacts with the player. Regardless of his God like status at the Brotherhood, he interacts with you as a human. He is cold when he needs to be cold, he has sarcasm, he has emotions without overreacting or being cheesy (in TD... in C&C3, he overreacts on some moments). Joe Kucan wasn't a famous actor when TD was under development, however, he was talented and he clearly showed his talent in the game and nowadays, many people may consider him the best actor of all C&C games.

So, yes, I think there are a lot of good ideas in this post from Alex06 and I hope that Bioware/Victory Games take it seriously.

[Alex06]

Thank you, Banshee.

With that said, it would indeed be preferable to have full-motion video with live action, as it allows characters to show a maximum range of different emotions properly. So unless it's as good as the Resistance 3, Diablo 3, Star Wars Force Unleashed 2 or Star Wars The Old Republic CGI cinematics, or the in-game quality facial realism from L.A. Noire or The Last of Us, they should opt for live-action FMVs, in my opinion. In-game facial expressions in BF3 are not the best, but still good, despite how amazingly real the characters look.

I would hate to see the same kind of rather average facial expressions we see in-game in Gears of War, Halo: Reach, Modern Warfare 3, Crysis 2, NFS: The Run, Skyrim, Mass Effect 1, 2 & 3, Dragon Age 1 & 2, & Star Wars: The Old Republic. I want to be able to tell if the characters are confused, tired, sad, angry, shocked or surprised, up to the smallest expression and difference of expression visible on a Human face.

[cnc_kingbdogz]

Nice write up, Alex. I finally got my forum account to work

If there is anything that Starcraft 2 has taught us through its campaign, it's that video game characters do not have to be portrayed through actors to be engaging or emotionally attaching. Heck, Starcraft 2's engine only supports fairly standard graphics (it's definitely not the best in the world), yet Blizzard still used it to its full potential and created characters who are able to express a huge range of feelings and emotions.

Now that we know Generals 2 is utilizing the Frostbite 2 engine, there is no doubt that Bioware Victory has the resources and capability to represent these characters within the in-game engine itself. Breaking down this style of character representation leaves us with a list of positives and negatives:


~ Positives ~

- There is much potential for characters to engage in battle scenes themselves. For example, in the Starcraft 2 cinematic where General Warfield is overwhelmed by Zerg creatures, he is able to engage in the battle and fight off one Hydralisk. The same scene could definitely be replicated with actors, but the final product may not feel as convincing or engaging. On top of that, it would require way less resources to create the scene in-game rather than with props, actors, proper clothing, etc. For anyone who does not know what I'm referring to:



That above example just shows what Starcraft 2 could create with their in-game cinematics, even with a less superior engine. I could only expect better from Generals 2 with such an advanced engine (Frostbite 2). There is a lot of potential for in-game cinematics.

- Developers don't have to bother with designing armour and suits (for actors) that stay true to the game's existing art style. Likewise, props aren't an issue.

- May be less time consuming.


~ Negatives ~

- Hardcore Command & Conquer fans may feel detached from the game since they have become familiar with the idea of cinematics being played out by actors.

- Bioware Victory might not have the experience to create convincing in-game characters (it's a lot of work to make your characters feel realistic, and conveying emotions can be extremely hard to pull off).


I know there is a lot of general hate for Starcraft 2 around these forums, so you may not like the amount of references I'm making to it. However, whether you like it or not, there is no denying that it is definitely a greatly designed game. The enormous fanbase is evidence of this fact.

[Alex06]

While I'm more FOR having live-action, I can do without - IF it looks just like the real thing, as I detailed. The more important point of this topic, however, was to make the story emotionally engaging and have the characters interact with the player facially, be interesting and go through some development.

I'll also add that C&C never really had actors playing out battle scenes, like we can see in the StarCraft II cinematic which you've posted. So, live-action would not come into conflict with the idea of having characters be on the battlefield, because that is not something C&C is known for. The battlefield cinematics are generally devoid of up-close character shots, like in Generals. The only thing that we might see is a transmission video with the live-actor(s) talking, while the battlefield scene plays out. We don't really follow the characters directly into combat during live-action, but rather stay with them behind the scenes, where all the commanding happens.

By the way, my opinion on StarCraft II is much like yours.

EDIT: Here is a post in a topic on the Generals 2 forum that feels like it would be a good addition to this topic and my point of view - this is mainly about live-action, and not necessarily part of my main suggestion in this topic (As in, you can skip it).

First-person FMVs with preferably non-Hollywood talent acting in them (but I wouldn't be against it.) My main gripe I'd have with Hollywood talent would be if they intentionally tried to flesh the cast out with well-known actors for the sake of using well-known actors.

Also I don't mind CGI action scenes as long as they don't look cheesy in comparison to the live actors.

In my opinion, we also need good writing, a good director, and actors (and the director and writers) who take the characters/roles seriously rather than simply act cheesy or not as professionally on the basis that it's a video game. And the chemistry between actors should be thought about, as should the actors be chosen for how well they can play/fit the type of character. I personally wouldn't hire a comedian actor to play a war veteran.

With that said, it doesn't matter if they are Hollywood celebrities, actors who have played in Hollywood movies but aren't celebrities, average actors, underground actors (those that all us geeks love) or complete unknowns. What ultimately matters is that they are dedicated, good, and take their role seriously and to heart.

[cnc_kingbdogz]

I'll also add that C&C never really had actors playing out battle scenes, like we can see in the StarCraft II cinematic which you've posted. So, live-action would not come into conflict with the idea of having characters be on the battlefield, because that is not something C&C is known for. The battlefield cinematics are generally devoid of up-close character shots, like in Generals. The only thing that we might see is a transmission video with the live-actor(s) talking, while the battlefield scene plays out. We don't really follow the characters directly into combat during live-action, but rather stay with them behind the scenes, where all the commanding happens.

Very true, Command & Conquer games haven't really ventured down this road yet. Although it's never too late to start considering it. I'm just going to throw an example out here:

In the Red Alert universe you don't see too much of Tanya in the cinematics (apart from a brief conversation here and there). What would be cool is if there was a scene which presented an important interaction between two characters. Let's say, for example, that Tanya was ordered to assassinate an enemy leader. There would be huge potential for the developers to create a scene which shows her ducking for cover and fighting off some guards. Towards the end she would finally take the leader out. These type of scenes could work very well in the Generals universe if the writers are able to give the story more depth than just "blablabla I am one of the last remaining Generals blabla I will defeat you! bla" and have NO range of characters. It would be amazing if we could have some soldiers who become a main part of the storyline.

Whether or not the scenes are live-action, the developers should strive to have interesting characters and a good overarching plot.

[Elearen]

From what I can tell from this article, this subject will already be happening.

http://au.pc.ign.com/articles/121/1214474p1.html

[stormgear]

I see that a lot of games nowadays can pull off a cinematic-like grade of FMV's so here's hoping that they'd do this game right

[Kyang]

IIRC, the only time characters interact with the player in Generals is when our faction specific intel officers talk to us. And even then the player never sees who's talking to them. I agree that we need a little more than that...

[Alex06]

From what I can tell from this article, this subject will already be happening.

http://au.pc.ign.com/articles/121/1214474p1.html

Yeah, this post was made before the article on IGN showed up, and was approved afterwards.

IIRC, the only time characters interact with the player in Generals is when our faction specific intel officers talk to us. And even then the player never sees who's talking to them. I agree that we need a little more than that...

A little more? More like a lot! :P