Too many stereotypical characters?

[Geoff]

I'm not trying to complain too much, because I like this game overall, but I can't help but be mildly annoyed with the stereotypical characters. Some characters aren't as bad as others, but some such as Chloe's stepdad and Victoria just seem to be somebody's idea of an awful person (i.e. abusive gun-toting stepdad and rich preppy bully) rather than real people. The writing seems to hint at the possibility of redeemable things about them, but they never seem to actually surface in the dialogue. I'm not suggesting that the writers need to "humanize" abusive stepdads or anything, but these characters are just unbelievable. My girlfriend who suffered from an abusive stepdad wholeheartedly agrees with me that the stepdad is pretty horribly portrayed so far, so I can't be alone on this.

[Drakken]

imho the main characters can evolve all along the game the whole game is about Maxine influence on others. Since my Maxine is a nice young lady she is try to insulate the bad guys by turning their frends against them.
This is what you are doing with Victoria's friends in episode 2
And even Zak is talking to you and he is praising your intelligence in episode 2 "you'r smart Max.."
So imho nothing is set in stone about all of them.

[Rivercliff]

Merdakah,

I didn’t read your post until after I posted mine. You make several excellent points, but the one that really caught my attention was your last sentence: “The best example I can give where this resonates the most is the fact that we're not even sure who Max really is.” Do you think that was merely a “shortcut” or was it meant to serve the story in some way?

It is really striking to have such an ambiguous protagonist, right down to her physical appearance. (She is obviously female, but, in addition to having a boy’s name, she looks and dresses like a boy.) I have no idea where the writers will take this in future chapters, but I am very eager to find out, just as I’m eager to find out how they develop her undefined (immature?) character. In any event, I think she’s the most intriguing & compelling game character since April Ryan.

[bukkie661]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Rivercliff:

Merdakah,

I didn’t read your post until after I posted mine. You make several excellent points, but the one that really caught my attention was your last sentence: “The best example I can give where this resonates the most is the fact that we're not even sure who Max really is.” Do you think that was merely a “shortcut” or was it meant to serve the story in some way?

It is really striking to have such an ambiguous protagonist, right down to her physical appearance. (She is obviously female, but, in addition to having a boy’s name, she looks and dresses like a boy.) I have no idea where the writers will take this in future chapters, but I am very eager to find out, just as I’m eager to find out how they develop her undefined (immature?) character. In any event, I think she’s the most intriguing & compelling game character since April Ryan.

If it serves the story, then the only explanation I can come up with is 'David Lynch'. And that would mean that the protagonist is a plot-device along the lines of 'Luke, I'm your father!'.
It's generally not advisable to have too many outs on the character the reader/player is asked to identify with. If a writer is skilled enough to do it, then go for it, but once again the medium used is not optimal.

I really feel at points that Max is secondary to the cast, there to showcase the awesome quirky people that either help or don't help. Where Max shines are the parts where she's on her own, because you get a bit of a handle on who she is. Yet, as soon as she has to interact, that image that I have is destroyed.

It can also be that as an author using traditional tools, I expect too much from the writing-staff without giving enough credit for the audio-visual part that has to double for the lack of written text.

[corgano]

Takkun, I totally agree with you. And yes: I also still like this game. I hope the storywriters will realize this “problem”.
OT: I would also like to hear / read less “bad words”. I know: It’s all about young adults, but a little less strong language wouldn’t harm.

[fenke]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Takkun:

Whoa, Fenke, no need to be condescending. I already said that I liked the game, am I now allowed to critique it at all? And I agree Bomoo, that there is certainly way worse writing out there.

Well excuse me, but it seemed you had missed (or ignored) most of episode 2 to be able to claim the game characterizes David as the stereotypical 'abusive gun-toting stepdad'. It's so far off the mark that I assumed you hadn't played ep.2 yet.

[Geoff]

Uhh, yeah, I hadn't finished episode 2 at that point, but I still stand by my original assertion after finishing the episode. Just because David is a little less of an ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ doesn't mean he has overcome the stereotype. The introduction to a character is arguably one of the most important parts of any story, so when the first impressions of these characters rely heavily on stereotypes that have been utilized by writers for decades, I wouldn't consider it an example of stellar storytelling.

The foundation of his character and the others I have mentioned are all based on stereotypes. The writers could build off of this, sure, but it's lazy writing to introduce characters via stereotypes. As I said before, it's certainly possible for a game to have characters that aren't obviously based off stereotypes. It's true that stereotypes are difficult to avoid completely, but you can utilize them to varying extents. Again, I bring up The Walking Dead as the perfect example of this.

[Ekabolio]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Merdakah:

David Cage can tell you that writing a multi-faceted story on an electronic platform that uses imagery over words is pretty damn hard. I'm fully prepared to believe that, since I have it easier; as a traditional author I can take my time and flesh out my actors.

Dontnod is pulling away from from a few established story-telling conventions:
1) Keep the cast compact. As it stands, there are too many actors and it is not clear where in the spotlight-hierarchy many of them are.
2) Keep it simple. LiS isn't simple. Simple does not mean no complexity, but right now there are too many questions and too many tangents to discuss LiS with any kind of consensus.
(There are more conventions, but these two are throwing wrenches in the discussions on here reliably.)

Due to the story's scope, the amount of ideas introduced and the amount of actors needed to make it work, Dontnod is more or less forced to leave the one to achieve the other. Basically, something has to give and it is done by taking shortcuts in character-development.

The best example I can give where this resonates the most is the fact that we're not even sure who Max really is.

Just cause David Cage is terrible at writing characters with depth doesn't mean other people are. The guy is one of the worst writers in the industry and that's saying something. It doesn't help the situation that he's a pompous egotistical dickwad. I mean, Citizen Cage, seriously?

If you're sincerely arguing that the cast is too large for the story and conversely that small casts are standard in stories, I again have to question your "tradtional authorship".

The main cast within LiS is obvious, the game even points it out to you in game-menus if you're that unaware of what's right there. Who the supporting characters are within that main cast is also obvious. Who inhabits the minor supporting roles outside of the main cast is also incredibly obvious too. As it stands, Dontnod isn't "pulling away from any conventions" here like you're claiming. Further to that point, there are numerous upon numerous examples of stories told with a relatively large cast of characters. This exists within literature all over the place and even centuries back. It isn't impossible to create a large cast with depth in them in relatively short-time periods. All it requires is simple and clever writing.

A story can present questions and ideas and connect them in various ways. There's a difference between: "too much is going on" and "lots is going on but stuff has connections". Again, you come across as someone who doesn't know writing rules but likes to claim they do.

You can figure Max's character plenty enough from her behavior, reactions, the journal, etc. etc. we get quite a decent insight into her and her life. Now you're just being ridiculous, not that you haven't been before.

[Ekabolio]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Takkun:

Uhh, yeah, I hadn't finished episode 2 at that point, but I still stand by my original assertion after finishing the episode. Just because David is a little less of an ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ doesn't mean he has overcome the stereotype. The introduction to a character is arguably one of the most important parts of any story, so when the first impressions of these characters rely heavily on stereotypes that have been utilized by writers for decades, I wouldn't consider it an example of stellar storytelling.

The foundation of his character and the others I have mentioned are all based on stereotypes. The writers could build off of this, sure, but it's lazy writing to introduce characters via stereotypes. As I said before, it's certainly possible for a game to have characters that aren't obviously based off stereotypes. It's true that stereotypes are difficult to avoid completely, but you can utilize them to varying extents. Again, I bring up The Walking Dead as the perfect example of this.

Except there's an obvious depth to him that you seem to have purposefully tried to miss. We can see this depth to him even in Episode One. He's a flawed human-being and honestly one of the better characters of the story so far. Plenty of people have already picked up those facets of his character. It's a common enough topic on this forum, the depth to his role. Hell, everytime some right-winger/MRA/Gamergater whines about him/the game ingeneral, numerous people are right there, pointing out everything that shows that they didn't at all bother to even play the game really. Because the game doesn't at all work like they LOVE to claim it does.


Kenny is one of the worst characters in video game history. The Walking Dead is not at all a great example.

[Geoff]

Ekabolio, I don't identify as an MRA/Right-winger/Gamergater so please don't associate me with them in your counterargument. Even if that wasn't your intention, it's pointless to mention them because it holds no weight in this discussion. People here is claiming some mysterious subtle character development, yet the only thing I have seen so far is that he is slightly less of an ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ in episode 2. Yes, he is a flawed human being, but by introducing us to him by revealing all of his flaws in the first place makes it a lot less powerful. Trying to remove his flaws suddenly isn't development, it's inconsistency. The fact that none of the protagonists (ie the character we're supposed to identify with) have absolutely no sympathy for him at all, screams that the writers are purposefully trying to make us dislike him.

How is Kenny a bad character? I've written to quite throughly my opinion as to why David Madsen is a bad character, yet you degrade Kenny in just one sentence.

Look, The Walking Dead has gotten more acclaim especially for its writing, whereas Life is Strange has cotinuously been rated lower by many critics because of its writing. Many people have criticized the dialogue and characters in this game. So don't pretend it's just me with this opinion. Also don't conveiently label me as an MRA just because I have a minority opinion on this topic.

[corgano]

I agree with Takkun, but that’s just my humble opinion. I like this game anyway, but I do hope the characters / the writing will improve.

[fenke]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Merdakah:

The best example I can give where this resonates the most is the fact that we're not even sure who Max really is.

Wouldn't that be to be expected in a coming-of-age story?

[bukkie661]

Oprindeligt skrevet af fenke:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Merdakah:

The best example I can give where this resonates the most is the fact that we're not even sure who Max really is.

Wouldn't that be to be expected in a coming-of-age story?

It was more of a meta-argument. In order to fully enjoy a story, you have to identify at a certain level with the protagonist. I think that Max is too ambiquous and that the mystery of Max is more detracting than helping the story.