[After a brisk nap]

John Walker, who used to post here under the nick "botherer", has posted a three-part interview [ 1, 2, 3] with the TLJ mastermind (and guy responsible for Dreamfall). Some interesting stuff there, and it finally settled an old argument about whether the TLJ story is Gaiman-inspired (yes it is).

[AndreaDraco83]

Very interesting review and a wonderful way to further investigate the inner world of Tornquist: his takes on storytelling are surely enthralling on many levels, although I disagree with a few points, especially on the ending of Dreamfall - I understand that he has to defend his creature, but denying that the game has an open ending is a little out of the line, for a person with such a good understanding of the art of storytelling - and on Kian: I understand that he has to cut off some things, but I also think that - in comparison to his women - Kian is surely a little underestimated character.

A little note on the very end of interview:

RPS: And what if Chapters never happens?

Ragnar: Even if it never continues, I think it would be satisfactory. Except a couple of things that you wish would be explained, like Brian Westhouse, the white dragon…

If it never continues, I surely won't think it would be satisfactory

[Keregioz]

RPS: And what if Chapters never happens?

Ragnar: Even if it never continues, I think it would be satisfactory. Except a couple of things that you wish would be explained, like Brian Westhouse, the white dragon…

A couple??!?!

[Squinky]

The part about why he writes female characters, while I can tell it's well-intentioned, nevertheless bugs me a bit:

Originally Posted by Ragnar

I’m extremely fascinated by women. I’m surrounded by them. My wife, my baby girl. My cat is female. I find women fascinating – I love women! On every level! I dunno – there are just more options when it comes to female characters. On an emotional, spiritual level... I listen to how they talk, and I love to talk and listen to women, because to me their way of thinking is really interesting.

And to this, I say: people need to realise that women don't think in a single, homogenous way! Women are unique individuals, just like men. Sure, some women are fascinating (I've met a few... just as I've met a few men who are just as fascinating), but many are downright boring and predictable, just like you are! And even though females are generally socialised to be more emotional and spiritual, the fact is, that varies, just as it does with men. We're people, not mythical creatures, dammit!

Originally Posted by Ragnar

But for us men, it’s in our DNA to try and get into the heads of women, and for them to like us. It’s just something we do. No matter how happy a relationship we have, if we talk to an attractive woman, we still want to feel like that person likes us. So seeing it from the other side, trying to work out how they’re thinking, is an interesting exercise.

My hatred for biologically deterministic statements aside, I'd like to ask Ragnar what he means by "attractive" women. What about women he considers unattractive? Does he deem them worthy of having their heads entered?

Originally Posted by Ragnar

...nobody’s done a layered, interesting male character that reflects the people playing the games. Because the people playing aren’t these macho, gun-wielding guys, they’re guys with… female aspects to them! Like us!

Oh, pshaw, I say. What about Guybrush Threepwood? Manny Calavera? Razputin? Robert Cath? Phoenix Wright? Kyle Hyde? Ben Whatsisname? And probably plenty more... at least in comparison to the number of layered, interesting, non-stereotypical female lead characters I can think of.

That said, I find it a little sad and unfortunate that folks like Ragnar feel so ashamed of their "feminine" qualities that they feel the need to express them through female characters. See, kids, patriarchy hurts everyone, not just women!

[AndreaDraco83]

Originally Posted by Squinky

Oh, pshaw, I say. What about Guybrush Threepwood? Manny Calavera? Razputin? Robert Cath? Phoenix Wright? Kyle Hyde? Ben Whatsisname? And probably plenty more... at least in comparison to the number of layered, interesting, non-stereotypical female lead characters I can think of.

The statement about the complex men characters bugged me too, also because in his work, at least in my opinion, he totally failed to portrait interesting male character (Kian was surely a fascinating character, but we saw so little of him that maybe it's just my perception of him to make him interesting to me): Gabriel Knight, Tex Murphy but also Hans Voralberg (to name just a few you haven't mentioned) are way afar from his reach, judging by what we've seen so far.

On his female characters, they are surely interesting characters, aside from their sex, but they are also very similar to each other, so I think that maybe he has just thrown away a stereotype to embrace another one. And the same thing said for male characters can easily be said for female characters: even before Tornquist's arrival, we had wonderful female chraracters - Grace Nakimura, for example, or Laura Bow, or even - I'm reaching the prehistory of adventure gaming - Rosella of Daventry who, for the first time, tried to save herself without expecting a prince to do the dirty work.

So, Tornquist has surely a great understanding of the art of storytelling, but I too think he was a bit obnoxious when dealing with the sex theme.

[Squinky]

Originally Posted by AndreaDraco83

On his female characters, they are surely interesting characters, aside from their sex, but they are also very similar to each other, so I think that maybe he has just thrown away a stereotype to embrace another one.

That's sort of how I feel too... and the fact that there have been so many April Ryan clones in adventure games since TLJ only seems to confirm that theory.

[AndreaDraco83]

Originally Posted by Squinky

That's sort of how I feel too... and the fact that there have been so many April Ryan clones in adventure games since TLJ only seems to confirm that theory.

Unfortunately for us, indeed April Ryan originated a line-up of clones, which are summable pretty much like this: attractive (I don't think Ragnar intended their minds ) young woman in her twenties who reluctantly accept her important role in the bigger picture of /something/. Kate Walker suffered from this syndrome a little bit, at the beginning of Syberia, but - in the end - she turned out to be a more personal character, at least in my opinion: the same thing can't be said for Zoe Castillo - she has a total different back-story than April, but at the very core they're very similar, maybe too much similar.

[Lee in Limbo]

Interesting interview. I suspected his comment that it was a complete story would probably bug some people.

I'm also not too surprised that a couple of very thoughtful folks (*hugs*) noticed his comments about writing strong, 'attractive' female leads. I suspect the problem from his point of view is that he may have failed to notice the finer aspects of some male characters in game because, basically, mostl of the male characters whose personalities are unconventional (for lack of a better word) are also the stars of very unconventional and --dare I say it-- comedic stories. TLJ and DF have comedic dialogue, but their stories are not particularly funny. Guybrush Threepwood would seem a little miscast in such environments, I suspect.

'Serious' male role models in computer games have, by and large, been fairly macho, one-note characters. Ciphers, really, but that's beside the point, and denotes a certain amount of forethought that may not have gone into their creation.

The requirement of the standard issue hero isn't to be someone we can empathize with but that we have wish-fulfillment issues with. What we're seeing now with some female leads is sort of the same thing, with two dimensional female characters being created whom we don't so much identify with as want to help and protect (and possibly mate with, which touches on another possible issue, i.e. the overt sexualization of female leads in adventure games).

I'm still slowly playing through Secret Files Tunguska because the story intrigues me and because I want to help what's-her-name find her father. However, I'm finding very little about her character to draw me in and identify with the way I did April or Zoe. She has a curvier figure than either of those characters, and doesn't appear in her underthings, but I'm still finding her hard to enjoy, due in no small part to her voice actress, but in main because she lacks most of those little characterization things that make her someone I know and understand already. I can't identify with a whiny Daddy's Girl who is apparently a mechanic but looks like she'd get a severe sprain if she hefted a socket wrench, and talks like she wouldn't know how to use one anyway. April was a frustrated art student, and Zoe was an undirected college grad (IIRC), but at least they seemed to have thoughts other than Adventure Game Character thoughts like 'Oh, I should pick that up'.

Often heroic fantasy of any type strongly calls for an Indiana Jones character, and most of those stories fail to create a multi-dimensional character that can actually survive telling more than one story, like Indy. Gabriel Knight succeeds, but I'd say that's at least in part because he was written by a woman who had a strong grasp of both storytelling and characterization.

I had some other thoughts, but I've had company for the last few hours, and can no longer recall what I was going to day. I'll come back tomorrow and apologize.

[Squinky]

Originally Posted by Lee in Limbo

I suspect the problem from his point of view is that he may have failed to notice the finer aspects of some male characters in game because, basically, mostl [sic] of the male characters whose personalities are unconventional (for lack of a better word) are also the stars of very unconventional and --dare I say it-- comedic stories. TLJ and DF have comedic dialogue, but their stories are not particularly funny. Guybrush Threepwood would seem a little miscast in such environments, I suspect.

I disagree. A well-intentioned, naïve young man with delusions of grandeur would have fit perfectly in that kind of an environment, only instead of wanting to be a pirate, he could have wanted to be a famous artist instead. And I wouldn't say Ragnar has much of an excuse for overlooking many of the characters I mentioned, particularly given that there are more than a few not-so-subtle nods to old school Lucas games in TLJ. (Officer Guybrush the toy monkey, anyone?)

Originally Posted by Lee in Limbo

Often heroic fantasy of any type strongly calls for an Indiana Jones character, and most of those stories fail to create a multi-dimensional character that can actually survive telling more than one story, like Indy.

Just because that's the way stories are and historically have been, doesn't mean that that's the way stories should be. There's no excuse in my mind for lazy writing.

[After a brisk nap]

I agree that the way he put his comments about writing female characters wasn't great. The thing is, I think he would be the first to agree with pretty much every point you make. He seems like a pretty reasonable guy, and I'm sure he'd admit that there have been some great, not-overly-macho male characters in other games. (Though Phoenix Wright and Gabriel Knight? Really?)

I was more struck by the (to me obviously deluded) idea that the story of Dreamfall is "better" and "more mature" than TLJ's because it can be described in a flowchart, and because they jammed every character's development into the same template. 'Cause that didn't seem at all forced. Nuh-uh!

[AndreaDraco83]

Originally Posted by After a brisk nap

[...]I'm sure he'd admit that there have been some great, not-overly-macho male characters in other games. (Though Phoenix Wright and Gabriel Knight? Really?)

Can you really say that Gabriel Knight is just an overly-macho character? Personally, I think that he's far more complex and nuanced than any characters - male or female - appeared in a Tornquist's game. He surely has a womanizer attitude, but it's mainly a facade, as it's clearly showed by both his relationship with Malia and Grace (not to mention his relationship with Von Glower, which, perhaps, is one of the most deep and intriguing I've ever seen, not only in an adventure game).

Beside, I think that anyone couldn't deny that, in a particular way, the world of Tornquist is very sexist: completely pale and highly stereotypical male characters (Charlie, Zack, April's father, Flipper, April's companion from the strong-but-sage black warrior to the deluded-naive little combatant), absent father-y figures and so on. I realize that this can be perceived as a biased comment, and I don't deny that the depiction of *sexuality* is a really important matter to me - I'm only noticing that, whilst great at other things, Tornquist has failed to realistically depict male characters; I can compare him at the last Almodovar (Todo sobre mi madre, Volver): strong preference for female characters (new in comparison with other titles, maybe; very similar to each other, for sure) and total sloppiness on the other half of the universe.

[Lee in Limbo]

I think we're running up against the problem of expectations versus the shorthand used to deliver characterization in highly technical mediums. One of the biggest limitations to writing for a medium like this (as oppsed to theater, television or even cinema) is that the dialogue has to be written many months in advance of the 'performance', and that performance has to be shoehorned into a fairly technical virtual world before the performance can be received. This limits the amount of rewriting, finessing and improvising that a professional actor can put into their performance to get across certain points that aren't coming across well in the original script. With games, the writer pretty much has to use broad strokes and shorthand flourishes to get their point across because they won't get a chance to fix it later.

I know, I sound like I'm missing the point. Gimme a second.

I'm not saying that certain naive male characters wouldn't be as capable of negotiating the ins and outs of an adventure like TLJ or DF. I think it largely comes down tot he expectations of the audience, and what they might expect a male character to be able to do in a story without seeming ineffectual.

I know it runs up against the stereotype of the athletic, violent male hero, and I know that many men don't fit into that mold. However, on some level, most men are expected to emulate that stereotype, or be regarded as less than a man. I know this feeling quite well myself, and though we're not of the same nationality, Ragnar and I are fairly close in age, and I suspect have some relatively similar backgrounds. I may be wrong, but I think I understand a little of where Ragnar is coming from.

We both think that there is something about female heroic leads that allows for a different kind of adventure, where the solutions can be more varied, because (some) women are a generally perceived as being a lot better at using different lines of logic and problem solving than men, who tend to see every problem in the manner they are trained to deal with problems. Soldiers see everything as a conflict to be confronted head on. Spies are always looking for the back door and trying not to be seen sneaking in and out. Engineers are always trying to build or break down a problem using a proper application of physics and chemistry. Nerdy or artsy guys always try to talk their way out of a situation, or start looking for the sliding tile puzzle to open the door.

Sure there are grey areas where the engineer or the arty guy might pick up a baseball bat and hit the antagonist over the head to get away, and certainly the soldier may use guile or engineering to surmount an obstacle that guns and fists can't. I mean, Doctor who is the ultimate story of a guy who uses his brain to defeat his foes and save innocent people. It's not impossible to write stories where a thinking, feeling, fallible man is the hero. But it takes work to build up that alternate image of the hero, and they often have to strike a different kind of heroic pose to make it clear that they're quite capable even without a fist or a gun.

This in no way excuses Ragnar for writing relatively ineffectual male characters (Brian's a drunkard, Burns is a paraplegic, Damien is kind of a wimp, Cortez, is cranky and enigmatic, and Crow is a goofy and cantakerous bird who is more use as comic relief than actual adventuring). It also doesn't justify him writing his plucky if reluctant (a very important trait, that reluctance) female leads in to clean up the mess all of this posturing men have made the world to be.

Now, let's talk for a minute about bumbling male leads and why they're so much fun. It's actually a nice change of pace to have a grand heroic adventure, and at the center of it is this mousey or at least less than 'manly' guy in over his head trying to resolve the problem. It's what most of us feel like in our daily lives, so we can immediately identify with him. However, the thing about that guy is, his arc towards heroism is fairly linear. At some point, he has to defeat the villains of the peace and restore the status quo. In order to do so, he has to endure a series of increasingly gruelling misadventures in order to learn to overcome his shortcomings as a man. In the end, he overcomes all obstacles and learns that he is indeed a man.

Now, I know that's a very trite, stupid, stereotypical formula, and there are lots of stories that seek to subvert that. The thing is, those are fairly specific stories, and they usually are tweaked ever so slightly to allow for the guy to discover that he is a hero without having to become Indiana Jones or James Bond to succeed. And they're usually comedies or movies of the week. Adventure story arcs can be sophisticated in detail, but the basic structure at the core is usually relatively formulaic. It's a short hand that has been passed down for centuries. Something about the knave who becomes a knight is ingrained in the woof and weft of adventure storytelling, and it affects a lot of our perception of what makes someone heroic.

The neat thing about writing women is that, right off the bat, you have someone who doesn't necessarily have to become the knight in shining armour to resolve the plot. Simply put, it's not expected of her. What makes it particularly fascinating is when she applies her perspective on a situation, which is often different from the antagonists, and by thinking out side of the box effectively outsmarts them. It's also highly rewarding to see the occasional female lead use the typical male heroic gesture of knocking the villain on his (or her) ass, after the outwitting has taken place

I think this formula is also a little pat and certainly nothing new, but it's relatively new as compared to the standard hero's journey, and it's fun in the context of the continuing struggle for women's equal rights inw hat is still by and large a male-dominated world (though thankfully, that does appear to be changing for the better). It feels good to see the woman you have been following through her adventure solve problems in ways that the men around her can't seem to do, and by using every trick in the book, beat the villain(ess) to the punchline, because they're used to dealing with short-sighted men.

It takes a lot of work to write a slight man who saves the day and doesn't turn into a macho dink in the process. The hero's journey is a very deep, resonating groove, and it's charming and clever to subvert it by putting someone seemingly inept or incapable into the role and have them somehow grow into the role without becoming as limited and as shallow as the more ideal candidate, often depicted in the same story as ultimately failing spectacularly. This is a fairly modern fantasy, a form of wish fulfillment invented primarily by writers who were picked on in school, and yet it too resonates with so many others who were also bullied. It's the sort of story young writers start writing very early on, until they figure out that it's been done many times before, and is hard to resolve without doing things that have already been done.

Interestingly, it's often women writers who break this deadlock as well, as evidenced by J.K. Rowling most recently. Harry slowly grows into a relatively heroic young man, but he never quite achieves that level of heroic polish that threatens to remove all of his gawky, boyish charm. Before that happens, the story ends, and he is seen briefly many years later as a relatively sedate father-type, who has long put the wars behind him and gone on to live a peaceful life. This was a very intelligent and honest way of resolving his story, even though it surely disappointed some who wanted him to go on to greater things.

However, it took seven novels of increasing length to get to that point, and some still feel that it was rushed.

Returning to my fave TV show, the current Doctor (David Tennant) is a prime example of a very quirky, unorthodox and highly un-macho guy who regularly taps into reserves of quiet heroism and daring-do (and often the help of his companions) to unravel the machinations of overly fascistic or patriarchal forces, and yet rarely if ever comes off as the standard boiler plate hero. But his formula is also fairly recognizably that of Doctor Who, and any story that approaches it suffers by comparison. Believe me, I know. My first ten years of 'serious' writing were spent dallying with this formula, in a series of books I've never bothered to finish.

The point about the Doctor's story is, it's almost 45 years old now. Every once in a while, the forces of evil triumph and he is forced to regenerate, rising from the ashes like a phoenix to take up the fight again. In that sense, he's an almost typical hero, because he never gives up. Most of us would have caved long ago, but the Doctor never does. So in that, he breaks both the nerdy and heroic stereotypes, because he's already another kind of hero.

(2 B cont'd)

[Lee in Limbo]

So, what does any of this have to do with writing a male hero who can do what the best female heroines can do? Well, put simply, it takes longer to establish a male character in a serious adventure who can seem weak and yet be strong enough to save the day through unorthodox means. The writer often has to go miles out of their way to prove that he is his own kind of hero, and can utterly reject the common methods to do so. Not impossible. Just a lot of work.

You have to be fairly married to writing a pretty complex male character that many people will have trouble identifying with if you get it wrong. And in an interactive medium, it's even harder to get that across, because the hero has make room for the player, often sacrificing character-defining reactions to make room for what the audience decides to do (unless you don't mind making things very linear, which is an oft-travelled path as well).

Harry is a young boy who is also a gifted wizard, and grows through the terrible teens to become a relatively heroic young man. The Doctor is an alien, and one so strange and yet so familiar that he remains largely unknown and unknowable. You can try creating such a character as these for an adventure game, like Simon the Sorceror or Guybrush or Gabriel or Manny or what have you, but you very often have to use short hand to get around the larger issue of plausible character development, just so you can tell the story, which usually can't be entirely about him.

The saddest thing is (and this is the part where there is going to be some debate, I'm sure), when a male lead becomes the saviour though unconventional means, it often goes overlooked because, even though it's a remarkable triumph and a great accomplishment of storytelling, the character only persists in the imaginations of the audience if they were written so convincingly that you can almost imagine the test of their lives in detail from that point on. Most unorthodox heroic fiction fails at this because, really, once your geek becomes a god, the story is over, the arc is finished, and afterwards, he'll go on to become a great success with little difficulty. It takes a lot of room to paint a faulty hero who goes on being faulty, and is still lovable all the same. The formula often breaks down in trying to achieve that effect. The unorthodox hero often fails to capture the imagination if he strays too far from the formula. The audience feels cheated, and they abandon him to his fate.

Whereas, a heroine is free to mark her own destiny in an adventure, and can do whatever she wants when it's over, and will still be seen as a remarkable hero by all who learn her story, because her formula isn't as static. She isn't expected to be a hero at all, so when she achieves it, she transcends in a way few men do. Simply put, she faced and hopefully overcame greater odds, which makes her superior to male heroes. She can rise or fall, but she'll still be amazing.

There's an old painting, by a painter whose name I've forgotten for the moment (I'll kick myself later), depicting one of those old caryatid statue pillars, shattered on the ground. In her frailty and ultimate failure, we feel the intensity of her sacrifice, and know her to be a hero without knowing any part of her story. It's a powerful image that resonates, because we know that women struggle, often quietly, under the weight of duty and oppression.

There are powerful images of male statues collapsed that evoke a certain sense of sadness or symbolic tragedy, but these are still interpretted as being indicative of some deep flaw in the hero that ultimately proved their undoing. The struggle is insignificant next to the fact that he failed. Ultimately, male protagonists have to become impervious to scrutiny, or their efforts are wasted, where female protagonists are judged based not on what was expected of them to begin with, but what they achieved despite those expectations.

Okay, long post, so I'll end it here. Hope I managed to say something helpful. The key here is expectation. It's not that it can't be another way. It's just that it's harder to stand out for having surmounted the odds when the path laid before you was paved in brick, than when it was a dirt path with mud puddles and broken stones. The sexist inequality at the core of that thinking is beside the point.

And none of it justifies showing young females in their underthings. That's just juvenile (although it does also reveal the frailty of the heroine in the beginning, showing her rising up from nothing in a more symbolic form without depicting her being oppressed overtly, like the weak male needs to be), but it amuses me greatly, because I'm a bad man.

[AndreaDraco83]

I can't quote exactly every part of your two posts, because it will take an eternity, so I'll try to contain myself.

You don't have the slightest idea of how bugged am I by this constant differentiation between female and male characters, because this kind of attitude clearly refers to a polarized and stereotypical vision of our world, that's not even true, at least in my very personal experience.

You say:

(some) women are a generally perceived as being a lot better at using different lines of logic and problem solving than men, who tend to see every problem in the manner they are trained to deal with problems. Soldiers see everything as a conflict to be confronted head on. Spies [...]

Now, I understand the needing, in a conversation, to generalize someone's opinions for the sake of the argument, but I can't think that you really believe this statement: it's sexist. "Men, who tend to see every problem in the manner they are trained to deal with problems" - it sound like a robot, or an automaton (not to displease Oscar's fans, and I'm amongst them). This kind of generalization always make me mad: male, female, transsexual, etc. etc. - speaking of "sex" or even "sexual orientation" to define a person - a person's behavior in a given situation, in this case - is reductive, at best; offensive, at worst. "Oh, it's just the usual nancy-dandy boy, the artie type of guy: he'll clearly react in that way! And there is the macho one, the strong alcohol-addicted: let's see him smash some heads. And the reluctant* character who doesn't want to save to world but has to is that girl over there"

* I totally agree with you: maybe Mr. Tornquist believe that every woman must be reluctant

She isn't expected to be a hero at all, so when she achieves it, she transcends in a way few men do.

It's this kind of perception that makes the world so wrong: that, even today, there are still people that don't expect a woman to be a hero. Let's clear a thing right away: I'm not up against you, Lee, 'cause I think you only tried to outline the point of the argument, but I'm up against anyone think that a woman, a gay character, etc. etc. "isn't expected to be a hero at all".

And I agree with you when you say that writing a faulty character (either male or female) that, whilst continuing to be faulty, it's also lovable, is very difficult. Few writers have achieved this, and Mr. Tornquist not yet: so maybe he'll just has to learn how to do.

[Lee in Limbo]

Okay Andrea, fair claims. Good points. I'll concede to you that these stereotypes have little to do with the real world. Another thing that has little to do with the real world is adventuring. We all know that this stuff isn't real, and that very few of us have such adventurous lives (some do, but I've never met anyone who did anything remotely like what we see in most of these games).

We read biographies that seem almost too fantastic to believe, and it's often only through careful editting and structuring of these life stories that we get a satisfying narrative that makes it seem believable on an instinctive level, even knowing that the story is supposed to be purely factual. A fact-filled story can still seem unrealistic if it isn't handled correctly, and particularly life stories of people who did great things.

So when we sit down to indulge in some adventure fiction, we are setting ourselves up for some standard archetypal manipulations, including the downtrodden protagonist becoming the hero of the hour. Writers do this because, if you write something fantastical, it has to come in certain shapes and sizes to be believable to an audience, or it feels wrong. It's not necessarily a good thing, but we tend to expect certain shorthand symbols and ideas to be projected, and they tend to resolve fairly predictably. From this following of the time-honoured formula, we receive the reward of catharsis.

Now, don't get me wrong. I know this isn't even close to how most writers think about their protagonists or their stories. Most of us want our heroes to be fairly perfect, in both their idealism and their flaws, if that makes sense. Good writers go to great pains to make their men and women both fallible and yet possessing of a certain moral integrity which makes them someone we would root for. However, you won't find much of that kind of storytelling in games yet, because the medium is still struggling to learn how to tell stories that are interactive and yet have resonance, without the usual dramatic tool kit.

Ultimately, I have a lot of conflicting thoughts about what makes good heroic fiction, and I look forward to discovering other ways of projecting heroism without resorting to shorthand. however, in electronic mediums, it's harder to get those points across due to the sheer economy required to convey a thought that pure text wouldn't have to sweat as much over. I honestly believe we can all be heroes. I just know that, in the world of writing, it takes a lot of setting up to make someone average or even below average rise to heroic stature, and to do that without the character being hollowed out by the experience, you can't cut corners, which is something even Ragnar has to do.

Faced with the limitations of a given medium, we are often forced to grab hold of archetypes and play against stereotypes, no matter how offensive they may seem to some. We may not agree that it's appropriate, and it may seem harmful or even archaic, but if a stereotype is still familiar to a wide variety of people, it can become a tool for telling a story without writing Anna Karenina or War and Peace.

A great writer will resolve the problems you outline. All writers should aspire to be great. But in truth, most of use have to make due with being competent and efficient. Many writers, perhaps myself included, will never achieve a work of fiction that truly elevates the thinking of the world around them. I may want to, but I may never get there. It may not be within my ability to achieve that goal without writing something really dull or bland. And when it comes to heroic fiction, dull and bland are your biggest obstacles, not the formula or stereotypes that don't portray people accurately.

It's no excuse for not trying, and I do believe games can and should try harder. I just find it easy to understand why writers make quick decisions like choosing an idealized female protagonist to tell what might otherwise seem a fairly stock adventure story. None of that addresses the unfairness and inequality of continuing to use stereotypes of jocks and wimps and plucky dames when we could just write more convincing, more realistic people. I just don't flog authors for using shorthand when there's a certain amount of balance needed to achieve all of the objectives without overwhelming one another. Too much characterization can bog down an adventure plot. The pace slows down considerably, and it becomes work to get back into the adventure, which starts to feel strapped on.

Okay, I've said way too much. I'll just admit you're right and leave it at that.

[AndreaDraco83]

Originally Posted by Lee in Limbo

However, you won't find much of that kind of storytelling in games yet, because the medium is still struggling to learn how to tell stories that are interactive and yet have resonance, without the usual dramatic tool kit.

I agree with you and yet disagree: it's true that this kind of storytelling, which involves a lot more of investment, in terms of money and time, is rare thing amongst games, but it's also true that some game designers risked and achieved something, so - as you said later on your post - this is not an excuse for not trying. In this regard, given also that adventure games had drastically reduced their game-play time in the last few years, I think that episodic games could be a good answer, 'cause like a book's chapters they can further the story and the character development without detracting much from the actual game-play (I obviously agree that in an AG a certain "adventure" is meant to be, and the gaming equivalent of an Henry James' novel isn't practicable - not yet, at least).

Originally Posted by Lee in Limbo

Faced with the limitations of a given medium, we are often forced to grab hold of archetypes and play against stereotypes, no matter how offensive they may seem to some. We may not agree that it's appropriate, and it may seem harmful or even archaic, but if a stereotype is still familiar to a wide variety of people, it can become a tool for telling a story without writing Anna Karenina or War and Peace.

The stereotypes of a give character can surely be useful: for example, the gay receptionist of Leisure Suit Larry (I can't recall if he's in sixth or seventh) serves a comedic purpose with a light-hearted mood that I don't think can ever be offensive to anyone. It's the stereotype for the stereotype's sake that I can't understand: let's look, i.e., at Gabriel Knight - he seem stereotyped at the very beginning of the game, but then, with just a few touches of Jane Jensen's pen, he came alive and felt true, vivid, realistic. And I can cite other examples, but the point is: given that the stereotypes can be a good base for a story, isn't now the time to start to build the pyramid on that base? Fine by me if a game designer doesn't want to do that, but if you want - as Mr. Tornquist said - at least take this game to an end.

Originally Posted by Lee in Limbo

It's no excuse for not trying, and I do believe games can and should try harder.

I totally agree with you: when the novel was born, first in Greece and then in, in the modern times, in England and French, it used a lot of stereotypical figures to help himself in its first newborn-y steps. Now, adventure games have almost thirty years: it's not that much, but it's sufficient to start trying harder, especially because some forerunners in storytelling had already started the marathon.

Pardon for the metaphor, but it's Olympic times

[Lee in Limbo]

That's just it. I don't think Ragnar did any better or worse a job on April than Jane did on Gabriel. Truth to tell, I'm not a fan of GK, largely because I'm still not that stoked by him. Different strokes, I suppose.

And while I'll concede that a lot of less than spectacular female leads have come in the wake of April Ryan, I don't think she's nearly as two-dimensional as she seems to be to you. Her I at least cared about enough to see to the end of her adventure.

But anyway, I figure it'll be a nice change of pace if I stop now.

[Squinky]

Well, Lee, if it's any consolation, I didn't think April was two-dimensional (yes, even though she did annoy me sometimes with her whininess), and I've never played any of the Gabriel Knight games. Also, you make some excellent points regarding writing that's more plot-focussed than character-focussed. I think I've said before that Ragnar's a far stronger example of the former (whereas folks like Tim Schafer are more of the latter).

What I've learned from all of this, of course, is that I need to get off my butt and write some realistic female characters of my own.

[AndreaDraco83]

I don't think that April is two-dimensional: I believe that she was a very well-rounded character, with a fascinating attitude toward her world - it's when we come to Zoe that things change: I liked her too, but I also think that she clearly demonstrate that Mr. Tornquist has only created another stereotype. Zoe is a little adjusted version of April: is this consideration that - paired with Mr. Tornquist takes on the subject - bugged me a bit

I also agree with both of you in placing Tornquist amongst the plot-driven writers: but, I also want to remember that others great examples of plot-driven writers - Lori Ann Cole, Christy Marx, even the late Roberta Williams - didn't make the mistake, in their game, to over-stylized their characters (at least not always) for the mere sake of the story, 'cause - without characters (unless we're talking about Myst) - there isn't an adventure game in the first place.

Anyway, I'll be extremely glad to be proved wrong by Dramfall: Chapters (also because, as I stated before, I think that Kian Alvane, if properly written, could be such a wonderful character)

[Ninja Dodo]

One aspect of stereotypes in narrative is that they are frequently used not out of laziness but for a very deliberate sense of clarity and unambiguous communication between game and player what to expect from this character. The more the game is about interacting differently with characters rather than plot-driven puzzles the more this becomes important. Complex layered characters become impossible to parse in gameplay terms. Valve among others are very big on clarity through design both narrative and visual.

As for interesting female characters, there've been a few outside the realm of adventure games. Jade from BG&E comes to mind, as does Farah from Sands of Time, or Alyx from Half Life 2. All characters that are not overly sexualized or defined only by their gender.

More overtly sexual but still unusually interesting are the Voerman twins in Vampire Bloodlines. If you play all the way through Santa Monica you'll find quite a few layers to their personality...

Often times a good female lead or secondary character is helped a lot by having a good voice actor(/actress? political correctness \o/ ). That's certainly the case for all of the above.

But back to the interview.

I think Ragnar underestimates the importance of resolving story. My one reaction at the end of Dreamfall was: "WTF was that?! You-- Credits, what?!"... I like stories that aren't wrapped up 100% and leave you with some things to think about, but the fact that he still labours under the illusion that Dreamfall's ending was in any way satisfying is disturbing and I hope not indicative of how he intends to conclude the trilogy.

Also the degree to which Dreamfall is not interactive is kind of astounding. The setting begs to be explored... show me the Outcast or Gothic take on Arcadia. Even Monkey Island 2 could teach Dreamfall a thing or two about open worlds... It doesn't have to be an RPG to be interactive, but give me something to *do*.