Far Cry 3, Mass Effect and the Importance of Character

 Characters In games, what makes us care?

Mass Effect 2 (EA) and Far Cry 3 (Ubisoft)

Necessary for what, one might ask? Well, for things such as an engaging narrative or the obvious creation of likable characters. Is Nathan Drake, from the Uncharted series of games, a character one roots for because of an earnest empathy or care for his well being? or is he merely likable because of the supposedly everyman player-self-identifiable character design of which he sports? I think we all claim to like characters for the layered, multi-self persona that they sport in games, but is that necessarily what may make me care about my Mass Effect series Commander Shepard, I'm not so sure. In the case of Mass Effect, Commander Shepard can be, at times, schizophrenic; in as far as coming off ultra-paranoid( and strange), to the point of appearing--more accurately sounding--as if Shepard has lost touch with the realities of his/her situation.

For a rough example: the player could possibly choose to utilize the dialogue tree, and with certain choices, portray a Shepard of a calm even keel and reasonable persona. But if that same player deviates from the path of sainthood--in Mass Effects case: Paragon choices--then they show a complete shift in personality, with too great a change in self to be regard as a mere natural shift in either status earned or the role played, by  Shepard in the society of the game. Thus the dichotomy of Paragon and Renegade meters( which simultaneously represent,respectively, "Good morality and Bad morality") creates a dysfunctional, in-coherent split personality character that nonetheless is still beloved by many. Some players have a very engaged relationship with there Commander Shepard, but how is this explained? It is simply a matter of taking the RPG (role playing game) element to its most stripped, simplistic and acrimonious resolution ; namely disregarding modern and classic notions of role-playing. Choosing instead--with complete inhibition and contempt for other standards--to focus on the merging of the player and their avatar/interface to the narrative. Thus, creating an experience where, regardless of the dissociative dialogue trees and choices, it is the player who feels empowered by the dearth of predefined choice sequences and the bevy of-- ambiguous/hidden--predetermined outcomes. The player, thus, gives up some, or all, of the cynicism associated with outside perspectives and inferences that would--in normality--serve to distance the gamer ,farther and farther away, from the heart and mind of the creative works at hand.




 Then all came a warrior a far, Far Cry (3) from home. In Far Cry 3 the player character is Jason Brody who, a long with his friends, ends up on an island where human trafficking and civil unrest abound.  It isn't to long before one meets Vaas--...really, not long at all-- and his pirates. Vaas by all accounts steals the show. It is his believable portrayal ( great voice work, decent dialogue and motion cap) that pulls the player into the plot. Otherwise, without Vaas, one could argue that Mr. Brody and friends would not be able to sustain/ hold-up any reasonable measure of engaging dialogue, plot or character in general. But, is Vaas overrated? What do you think, have you played Far Cry 3 yet? Do you see, through Jason's eyes, the vast landscapes of the tropical island as if you were there; and does that allow you to experience Vaas, much in the same way as Mass Effects' Commander Shepard allows one to experience his crew, as if from a literal first person perspective (this is me ignoring the fact that,yes, the game is a first-person game with RPG elements)? Thus, if one would agree, then it would be accurate to say that the engaging characters, filtered around a protagonist, can engage a player if the main character is intended to be a role-playing experience;which should include some form of character building and or narrative influence. Far Cry 3 is a wonderful experience with or without Vaas, in my opinion, but I will say that he adds an extra side-helping of flavor for the palates experience. Far Cry offers a large open-world to trot all-over and doesn't completely tie a leash around the player and player character.Thus, Far Cry 3, with its supporting cast, offers us, not just customization, but a world (including Vaas, hunting, swimming, driving, etc.) as an interface for the player to engage with the narrative.

 Combine its level of freedom with its RPG-lite elements of customization through upgrades coupled with its the first-person perspective (which allows us to moderately block out Jason's character), and you have an experience worth caring for; But wait couldn't that mean that your Call of Duty avatar could provide you with the same level of engagement, in terms of caring either for them or the narrative which they help drive...?I wouldn't agree with that. In COD you are either an unnamed, clone soldier or a protagonist who is dropped into very restrictive, non-empowering story arcs that quite frankly lack in good supporting characters. On top of that there is no engaging or reasonably light customization options nor narrative influence. I will attest to playing Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 and I give it credit for attempting to enthrall the player into the narrative. The beginnings of a fun and fresh choice system for the series are now laid down with the title, but there is still work to be done to engage on a level of Mass (Effect) proportions, with regards to the care one feels for there avatar and they're still a Far Cry from a support cast that can be dispersed through the experience, allowing for the player to feel engaged with the world around them.

Thanks for reading. I hope to have up some more reviews soon. So stay tuned! I do appreciate the support and any feedback or comments anyone may have. If there is anything that I can do to improve the experience or if there are any questions just let me know.