COGA: It gets better later...

[Commander]

COGA: It gets better later...

 

Hello everyone and I'm sure you're surprised to see me still doing these after what feels like a six month hiatus. I actually have been thinking about four different topics I wanted to discuss such as a top 10 list of feedback/criticism that people need to stop doing. I'll probably still do that or break it down into a few articles as it reflects my experiences and what I've seen succeed and not. This was a possible runner-up on that list because it's a case by case situation, but I've been saying and complaining about this again and again in Pokemon Rejuvenation yet I haven't had too much time to elaborate on it more. I'm not actually going to be talking about fan-games as much since this actually is a huge issue people overlook. And with that out of the way, I want you all to watch this intro if you haven't already as it's actually the primary focus of the topic:

 

Spoiler

 

 

I can already feel my nostalgia vibes going off just from listening to that song once again. I'd strongly recommend at least trying the game out as it's really surprising how much people overlook it purely because it's not Chrono Trigger. But we're not here to talk purely about what Chrono Cross is but what it did right. I can't think of a good example off the top of my head, but sometimes in a discussion between friends or communities you'll here someone talk about how they didn't enjoy the game so far. Often times you'll hear someone who had a similar experience say they agree/disagree and add the saying "it gets better". Often times this is a means to urge the player to continue on knowing that they'll enjoy the game more later when in reality it is a subjective term. It's also pretty much true for most storylines since a story is designed to build up to a climax.

 

So what am I getting on about? I'm merely saying that the climax and ending might not be all that important in the long run. We have certain famed games such as Mother 3 and supposedly Tales of Vesperia (from what I've heard) that have pretty butchered endings and I probably could name quite a large number that felt rushed such as Fire Emblem Awakening's. These games I just listed are really highly regarded and are among some of the best video games in their respective series. I feel a lot of my favorite games don't always have all that good second halves or finales yet they still remain high on the list. I'm not saying all games do this, but you start to notice a pattern.

 

These games I listed all have a few thing in common: a strong beginning, a likable main protagonist, and a hook. I'll cover these all individually but you do not necessarily have to have all three to be successful. If you actually have all three of these very early in a story, you are absolutely golden and probably better than I am and quite a number of people. These are not easy topics to nail but once you get them then it's rather easy to build off of them though that does grind down to your audience because people don't all think the same. [work on this]

 

The element I see most people struggle on is actually the strong beginning. If I see an opening that starts out with a future event/dream sequence displayed before jumping back into the present, you better pray you know what you're doing because I'm probably going to be throwing something at you. People who do that generally don't know what makes a good intro a good intro. It's a simple idea that a future event will keep the player motivated to continue or find out, but generally, I feel it just dampens some really good moments as time is your greatest enemy. The longer something pans out without additional buildup, the worse the payout is. The other thing I see which is a general pet peeve is what's called the Opening Scroll. Not very many modern games do it but reading through 10-20 minutes of pure text is a good way to ruin any mood. It's rarely needed even unless you're doing a recap (which in that case it should be an optional read). I know it's for the purpose of setting up the scene but...shouldn't the graphics be able to do the same thing? I guess what I'm saying here is please don't do these unless you want to see me go on a very, very long rant.

 

I've labeled things of what not to do, but I haven't exactly told you what makes an intro strong or not. Before you can make an intro strong, it has to be good first. The most successful method I learned is to use this ideology: assume people aren't idiots. You may laugh now, but you'll quickly realize that quite a few developers do insult your intelligence. I want to emphasize that as it's important when taking a baby step approach to introducing the world. Start by focusing on introducing the main protagonist using scenes that have him pretty involved to get a good feel for him. That should expand then to his hometown to get a feel for that and even a bit of an idea how the world functions. It should only be enough so that a player can move forward, but rewarding for those who move around an experiment. You don't need to tell a player everything and slow implementation lets them retain more and even learn by doing. Don't bog the game down with tutorials either and I'd argue people should read an in-game manual for 5 minutes rather than 20 minutes of explanation (I did relearn a kind of complex system in 5 minutes). While that does go more towards a gameplay perspective, it is very, very important in regards to story as well.

 

So if that's good, how do you make it strong? Three words: presentation, presentation, and presentation. It's as simple as it sounds. A good pacing goes a very long ways but it's what you do with that pacing that makes it great. I gotta think for a minute of a good example for this. I suppose Fire Emblem Awakening.........if we remove the future event scene before it...is a good place to start. The scene opens up to Chrom looking at Robin teasing him that "There's better places to sleep then the ground" before pulling him up. It then dives into Frederic questioning how trustable this strange character is "having no memory" keenly because Chrom is royalty, but this info is not mentioned anywhere at the time. A bandit attack is happening and they all rush in to save the day. It's a pretty well executed scene that makes you want to beat some baddies up with your new allies. It's really the dialogue and actions that make it a strong scene. And if you see anyone say something otherwise like needing a unique concept or action, please tell them that all you need is good pacing and good presentation. It's that simple.

 

And now we move onto everyone's favorite main idiot we call a protagonist. I want to clear one thing up before I start on this: it's okay for your main protagonist to do idiotic things, but it's not okay to make them an idiot. Basically, don't make them do something for convenience sake. Now how to make a likable protagonist is to put yourself into the game because everybody loves themselves...what? That's called a Mary Sue. Then why the heck do silent protags exist? The problem with silent protags is that while they aren't unlikable I can't really say they are likable. I'm referring to custom avatar ones and not someone like Mario who is defined by their silence and their actions speak for their words. These empty husks 9 times out of 10 hurt more than help a game and can even completely ruin a game plot. But for the sake of not turning this article about silent protags, I will be omitting all of them from being a factor of likable or not.

 

So what does a character have to be to be likable. I'm also going to omit voice acting from this factor, but believe me a VA can help swing a character one way or another despite other factors in play. My own definition is simply "a character who the reader/player can get emotionally attached to." One of the first factors is a good design. If a character looks really good, it often makes them a pretty likable character even if the character is overall bland. Some writers would argue that it's about humanizing the character to make them relatable which I do feel is a useful tool. I personally feel it's more important to make them understandable. I often emphasize motives as it often is the driving force for them doing things.

 

A fallacy I see with a lot of RPGs is that the main protagonist is generally a nice guy who may or may not be a ding-dong. The reason behind this is that the nice guy trope usually is a character most people like and is harder to dislike. Most really well liked protags fit this description. Them also being a ding-dong is a good back door method to lore dump information so that the player is able to get an understanding of it as well. It is a very overused cliche since it worked so well to the point people may roll their eyes when they see it. But there is one advantage to using that generic option over a silent protag. I'll let you figure that out since it's pretty self explanatory. Okay, okay I'll at least explain some of it. Having a character talk allows for narration and smoother transition of events in a conversation and it's easier to implement elements into the story such as backstory and explain motives.

 

But I can't exactly tell you how to design a good protagonist since it revolves around a full cast of characters. If you hand me a plot outline, I'll actually end up asking a number of questions about the characters and even ask for "what would they do" situations even if they are not there. I said already that characters being understandable is important, but that is because they are what we are shown. A plot is only as good and engaging as the characters who act in it. Fire Emblem Awakening is once again a good example to use here. There's so many things wrong with the game and it becomes nonsense but the first half of the game is very enjoyable just due to how the characters act and clash such as the bear meat scene. It wouldn't work quite well if one of the characters weren't like they were since it has good chemistry with the main protagonist(s). The fact that Robin is so hungry they don't care what their eating just adds to the humor.

 

However, there's actually one small situation where a silent protag can be done well and actually be likable. I listed Mother 3 on the list for one very good reason as the player controlled character is silent (even if they talk later). How do you make someone who isn't someone likable? You need to understand what makes a talking protagonist likable which I said is being understandable. So how do you do that with someone who doesn't speak. You need to have a mastery over show, don't tell. There's better ones in this game but this is a good near spoiler free one if you haven't seen it:

 

Spoiler

 

 

The Wes Dance is a famed scene for being hilarious but just take a moment and study Duster. You get a lot of knowledge about his character and probably could piece together a lot of what happened before this moment and Duster and Wes's relationship and what he's feeling right now. You probably could tell me quite a number of things about Duster. Now how about Vero from Pokemon Reborn? That's the thing. You've spent roughly 60 hours with one character and you probably know less about them than a character you met for 30 seconds. Silent Protags aren't a bad thing and I will not turn away a game for having them. Silent Protags is a difficult style of writing to perform well as it requires knowledge of how immersion works to do them well. One day I will cover it fully, but for the sake of simplicity, a good protagonist is determined by how well it's done and not how.

 

And now we get to what I feel is the most important of the three: the hook. I know in writing most English teachers teach you that a hook is one of the first two sentences in a paper. I'm going to change that definition a little bit. A hook in a video game to me is simply some element that pushes you to keep playing or even get you to play it. People don't pick up and play Call of Duty due to a good story, but some people play an RPG purely due to its story. We're going to stick with RPGs in general to keep this simple though. I'm going to start with the most simple and most successful methods I've noticed: the music and art style. Most openings to games give you this and often the covers have a very unique look to them. These usually aren't deal-breakers, but when done really well, they can win you over. Chrono Cross and Xenoblade are two games I actually tried just after listening to one song each. For Xenoblade it was Unfinished Battle, and for Chrono Cross it was Time's Scars.

 

But since most game devs don't have budgets like SE and Monolith Soft, I should probably focus more on story. This is kind of a wide area, but the most important piece is that you need to catch the player's interest deeply by the 30% mark in the story. If anyone tells you the intro needs to be really good, they'd be lying. I've only seen a small handful of games with openings I really liked. FFVII was one of those. I'm going to call that the first hour because the first hour usually is a deep slog. Unless you are Pokemon Sun and Moon where that first hour is actually 5 hours and takes up a fourth of the game. That's a different problem though. It's the point from there to what we used to call the Disc 1 final boss that matters. Best way to put it is that I should be given a good reason to be sinking a lot of time into it.

 

I could make a list, but I'm going to focus on the one thing that is not a good hook. If a game has a very good plot point in this segment, don't expect it to be a hook. Tales of Symphonia has a lot of good plot points in the game, but honestly the story really didn't hook me in all that much. It's a good game worth, but I could care less for the overall story. Persona 3 is another example of having a good plot point but it really isn't what people talk about (hell if you even remember the early parts of Persona 3). So please don't expect a single plot point moment to instantly hook players in. That plot point should be more designed for a "Wow!" factor which requires buildup which you can't really do effectively unless your buildup is good. Story is also the hardest part to hook players into since it's actually not always that important.

 

The best way to hook players into a game is usually making a good combination of elements shine or be presented well. One good example would to have a scene in the story which is a critical driving force for a character have well executed dialogue, good movement/direction, and a song that really sets the mood. It usually would make a player go "Wow, this game just go serious" and wonder where the story will continue from there. This is one really long list of how to do this right and it varies from different genres within the RPG category. Solid gameplay could make a player want to continue even if the story is lackluster. Unique ideas and concepts go a long way such as Xenoblade's concept of traveling on a titan and the classic line "if you see it, you can go there."  The best rule of thumb is to take what you accel at and go full blast with it as that often really helps make a game more enjoyable.

 

Finally I get to talk about Chrono Cross which honestly is one of those games which people have split opinions about. Like you have people who say it's a great game as well as people who say it's terrible and both have very valid reasons for stating that. To me though, this game honestly makes me question what makes a game good or bad. The characters are all more or less forgettable bar a few due to character bloat, there's the silent protag, and the story is mostly jammed into 3 npcs right before the final boss. The combat system also isn't the best. These are things that would make me outright say a game is bad. But it's not and I definitely recommend picking this game up and at least trying it. Damn shame that people dislike it expecting Chrono Trigger.

 

I'll start with the intro. There's only two things to really talk about in it, but those two things are very famous. The first would be Time's Scar, the theme of the opening. First time I heard that theme, I was just enthralled and left in wonder what this game was about, but man did it feel motivating when the tune changed halfway. I also love the tropical feel of it which is the general world design of the game. There's also the book with the poem at the start. It's actually symbolic to Radical Dreamers (damn shame we didn't get an official version of that) which had a book whenever you had a game over which reflected on your choices and actions. When you finish the game, the poem makes a lot more sense as many of your choices affect people bringing both pain and happiness.

 

So what makes Chrono Cross quite the game to talk about is the concept of parallel worlds and the butterfly effect. You explore this and see two completely different worlds due to one event. It's a mess with lots of issues but there's also many diamonds in the rough moments due to this. Most of this happens when bringing characters related to or that character's other world version with you. Also there are dogs who eat and kill each other to regain HP. The game's soundtrack though is what makes this game good. There's a couple moments in particular where this is very apparent and made the moment. One of my favorite has to be "People Imprisoned by Destiny." The music just speaks entirely for the battle to the point you don't even needs words. There's also the normal boss theme which really motivates you when fighting bosses. The game also throws a good old sucker punch first boss which is memorable and makes you wonder what will be thrown at you next.

 

I really haven't spent much time talking about Chrono Cross but I named a few things that kept my interests into the guy and why I kept playing it. That game is a beautiful mess which is a total hit or miss with people. It isn't the best, but I certainly wouldn't say it's boring and some pretty cool concepts. It's also kind of funny looking at how it's more important to have a very good first half or even quarter of a game over a great ending because it doesn't matter how good an ending is if players aren't feeling compelled to reach it. I do feel the term "it gets better" can be used when describing characters or specific plot elements, but rarely is it a good reason to convince someone to continue playing as if they aren't enjoying it now, that pessimistic feeling will continue later.

 

I'll try making these a more frequent thing than they were before, but I can't promise you how frequent it'll be. I feel a good topic for me to make next is what I feel a perfect game is at least in my book.

[FairFamily]

It was an interesting read but I feel a 30% mark for the hook can be a bit late. A 30% hook will certainly work for 1~12 hour games but it is already pushing it for ~20 hour games. Then for 25~60 games a hook at 30% is way too late. 

[when the music stops]

This was interesting and got me to actually make an account so I could respond. Bear in mind that I don't play a whole lot of video games, although I have written extensively/studied film concepts. I just found this intriguing and figured I'd chip in with some of my thoughts.

 

Quote

So what am I getting on about? I'm merely saying that the climax and ending might not be all that important in the long run. 

 

I strongly, strongly disagree with this statement. I often think of the beginning of a story as a question, a question from the author to the audience, and the ending provides the answer to the posed query. Having an interesting question is important, because it piques the audience's interest, but ultimately what matters is the answer. While I've played neither of the games you use as examples, video games in general are such a new medium, with gameplay often obfuscating traditional narrative, that these games breaking ground in terms of successfully combining the two is enough to get them remembered, regardless of whether or not it's consistent throughout. 

 

Quote

Before you can make an intro strong, it has to be good first. The most successful method I learned is to use this ideology: assume people aren't idiots. 

 

While this is true, it's such a broad statement that it doesn't really tell me much. Here's what I believe: show people what is happening and why. Don't hide or cloud themes/characters/plot for the sake of cheap tension or drama. This is something I see often and it baffles me. People want to see characters on screen reacting to events/information in believable and/or interesting ways. Why would you want to hide this? For a cheap 'gotcha' moment? If a character does something that deviates from their normal disposition, set it up first and then follow through with a payoff. I'm of the opinion that authors don't trust their own ability to write characters with clear motivations and goals, so they set up a smokescreen instead to get the audience asking more questions as opposed to thinking about answers.

 

I'll also add that characters are defined by their actions and reactions. Something happens and they respond. It's up to the author to tie this to the character's traits and/or flaws, and to use it to build toward the central theme of the narrative OR to progress the plot OR to shed further light on said character. 

 

Quote

So if that's good, how do you make it strong? Three words: presentation, presentation, and presentation.

 

Well... yes and no.  Good presentation makes it so that it's not bad, per se, but it doesn't mean the scene will stand out. The example you used, with Awakening, is quite bog standard. Yes, it's not bad, but it's also not very interesting, and rushing off to fight bandits tends to be a narrative crutch in a lot of the fantasy genre. Why? Because it's a simplistic conflict with a simple resolution -- kill the bandits. Then we get some plot and onward to the next set piece! It's just so... uninspired. Lazy. Competent, but lazy. 

 

The example you use isn't bad, but it lacks context, and it lacks that spark, that je ne sais quoi. It's just... fine. It exists competently. Having an interesting concept is fundamental to creating a memorable hook. Of course if the presentation is bad it will fall flat, this is an audio visual medium we're talking about, but good presentation without anything interesting to say is just empty calories. Reborn, meanwhile, starts off discussing a scarcity of Pokemon in the region, challenging gyms, and then we have a train explosion. Then we see the fallout of this explosion through Julia, Ame, and the surrounding NPCs. Good concept, good execution --> memorable hook. You can't have one without the other. 

 

Quote

it's okay for your main protagonist to do idiotic things, but it's not okay to make them an idiot.

 

I disagree. There's nothing wrong with making them an idiot. The problem is when the idiocy is treated as a situational quirk rather than an actual, consistent character trait, or as a means to force conflict. Then it's lazy storytelling.

 

Quote

Now how to make a likable protagonist is to put yourself into the game because everybody loves themselves...what? That's called a Mary Sue. 

 

I both agree and disagree. Self-inserts are often bad because people don't want to be critical of themselves, or want to engage in simple fantasy. But I feel every character an author writes should have some element or another of their own soul imprinted upon said character. Art is communication between the audience and the author, and the best way to retain suspension of disbelief is to make it feel real. And what better way to make something feel real than to draw upon personal life experiences? 

 

Quote

 

A fallacy I see with a lot of RPGs is that the main protagonist is generally a nice guy who may or may not be a ding-dong.

 

 

 

Ah, yes the everyman. Trust me, they're not just common in RPGs. I don't think it's because they're likable, however, but because they supposedly appeal to a broad spectrum of people. Kind of like those personality tests that are vague enough to mean anything to anyone. I mostly agree with your points regarding writing good characters. 

 

I decided to rewrite this next portion. I had time to think about it at work and I found myself wanting to better clarify my position.

 

The problem with the silent protagonist is not the silent protagonist itself, it's that using the silent protagonist badly is very noticeable and can shatter suspension of disbelief. I would argue that video games are the only medium in which a silent protagonist, or perhaps more fittingly, a player avatar, can be more effective than a predetermined character with a predetermined character arc. Because a player avatar can better immerse the player in the game, since they become that character. Another way to think about it is like this; when I'm playing as a talking protagonist with a defined personality and backstory, I feel like I'm simply guiding that character down their path (or one of several paths if the game has multiple endings). When I'm playing as a player avatar, I feel like I am the one inhabiting the world. It's a subtle difference and one that I believe is only effective in an interactive medium, which makes it a powerful tool. That's not to say that a character with an established personality cannot be effective, they absolutely can be, or that a badly implemented player avatar is better than a badly written typical protagonist, because it's not (looking at you, Rejuvenation), I just feel that some of my pinnacle gaming experiences have come through the eyes of an avatar. And I believe it's a concept that can continue to be expanded upon and improved as the medium itself expands and improves. I don't want to see it thrown away for the sake of a more traditional narrative, because then we lose something unique only to video games.

 

Quote

These usually aren't deal-breakers...

 

Strongly disagree. Music and art style are two of the basic foundations of a visual-narrative medium. They are fundamental. They transcend good games into great games. 
 

Quote

 

The best way to hook players into a game is usually making a good combination of elements shine or be presented well. 

 

 

 

I talked about this already, but in my opinion a hook should showcase the central premise in some capacity or another. And if you don't think the central premise is interesting enough to hook the reader, why are you making this game in the first place? I'll use Undertale as an example. It's opening, the "tutorial", explains the state of the world, introduces the core mechanic, and then the rest of the game proceeds to build upon these ideas from there.

 

Quote

I could make a list, but I'm going to focus on the one thing that is not a good hook. If a game has a very good plot point in this segment, don't expect it to be a hook. 

 

I don't understand what you mean by this. As in a dropped plot point that isn't further elaborated on? Also, I thought Persona 3 had a great hook, the problem was... almost everything else. I definitely remember the beginning much more vividly than most of the rest. 

 

A lot of what you talk about the end struck me as sort of jumbled and unclear. Maybe if I'd played Chrono Cross I would understand better. I will say this though:  
 

Quote

 

It isn't the best, but I certainly wouldn't say it's boring 

 

 

This is the important takeaway of all, I think. There's nothing worse than a piece of entertainment that's boring. Make me feel or make me think and if you can do both you're more than golden. At the end of the day, the "it gets better excuse" is problematic because I feel like I'm wasting my time. Why wait for something to get better when I can go play something that engages me right off the bat? I only have so much free time to enjoy entertainment, if it doesn't interest me I'm going drop it and find something that does.

 

  

 

Edited April 23, 2018 by when the music stops