Character identification: HL 2 versus Doom 3

I am currently working on a talk I am giving at university in Janaury about digital storytelling in computer games. One major topic is the narrative structure in Half Life 2 (or first person shooters in general). One design paradigm I will talk about, deals with the difference between player motivation and avatar motivation.

To give a simple example: In "Super Mario", Mario wants to rescue the princess, while the player doesn't want just that. The player wants to collect power coins, reach the final level, whatever...

My thesis now is: "The narrative structure of Half Life 2 leads to a stronger identification with the avatar's (Gordon Freeman's) motives, than in Doom 3, for example!"

A little explanation: Having played both, HL2 and D3, I believe that Doom3's gameplay is more arcade-like than HL2s. In Doom3, the player wants to get a better, bigger and cooler weapon, get scared by nasty monsters and demons, and - ultimately - fight the cool boss at the end. The marine, however, fights for his life, he does not think the wepons are "cool", but they are neccesary to survive. So, there is a huge difference between the marine's motivation and that of the player.

In Half Life 2, the urge to find a "cool weapon is not that huge", I think. The player is rather drawn into the well designed and threatening, mysterious environment, he "lives" the story, he wants to get out of City17 - just like Gordon Freeman. And just like Freeman, the player strives to find out more about the invasion of the combine and their motives and so on. So, the identification with the character in HL2 is closer than it is in Doom3.

So, I would like to know how you think about it. Maybe you share my opinion. Maybe you think it's different. Maybe you havent felt any identification with any character whatsoever. Please vote and feel free to post a written answer as well!

I felt that both games had poor plotlines, with Doom 3 only slighty edging out Half-Life 2 because the way the story was told and presented to the player left little to be confused about. Despite Doom 3 having a very simple plotline, atleast everything was explained and told to the player so he knew what was going on, who he was(without even having to know his name), and what he had to do.

Compare this to Half-Life 2's extremely confusing, seemingly complex, and at times nonsensical plot that was very poorly told to the player, leaving a lot of confusion and "WTF?!" moments. The player really had no clue what was going on or why you were doing it, other than to run away and do what you were told, as nothing was really explained to the player in a satisfactory way. This made it very hard for me to get immersed into the story. I'm not sure if this form of story telling was intentional, ie supposed to make the player feel as though he was really there, just witnessing events without knowing exactly what was going on or just trying to be artsy and mysterious, but IMHO, I feel that was an extremely poor way to present a complex story or plot to the player.

You don't have to hold the player's hand and tell him everything. In fact, a little discovery or exploration is a good thing. But when most of the story has to be learned from vague newspaper clippings or background discussions or even going online and seeing what others think the story was actually about, it leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. A little plot exposition here and there is enough, frankly. If the people you are presenting to don't know what the hell is going on or at the the very least have a vague idea of the story, disregarding personal opinions or discussions about the more obscure or undisclosed plot points, then you have failed at telling a story.

In closing, I feel that the Doom 3 Marine, simply because the plot was told in a better way, can be more easily related to and identified with, where as with Gordon Freeman, it was harder to identify with him since you have no idea what is going on, where you really were, or why you had to do anything.

I'm gonna have to agree about HL2's storyline. The series is fun to play, but very rarely do the routes make any sense... I'm just going whichever way is provided.

There wasn't too much of a story in HL2, but the ending was interesting.

I don't think you're answering his question. Anyway, the correct answer is that Gordon Freeman is more easily identifiable for the reasons you explained.

I`ve played both Half Life 2 and Doom 3 and I think the identification with the Doom Marine is stronger.

For a very simple reason too. The marine in Doom3 is unnamed, which makes it easier for me to assume his role.
In HL2, NPC's constantly refer to you as Gordon Freeman. That way it feels more like I'm controlling Gordon, instead of actually being him.

i think they arent that comparable because the marine is supposed to be YOU whereas hl2 is supposed to be gordon

Last option, though I finally have DOOM3...I can't play it until I get my new computer, though. >:\

Ralphis said:

I don't think you're answering his question.

Master of the obvious.

I think Gordon Freeman has a more clearly identifiable character - for the reasons already stated. However, in answer to the question "Where did you feel a closer identification with your game character?" there is one option missing.

I've played both Half Life 2 and Doom 3 and I didn't feel a particularly strong identification with either protagonist.

And that's where my vote goes. Both were fairly soulless games that I couldn't get into that much. I got ripped out of the immersion too often because of silly puzzles, or predictable traps or forced gameplay or scripted scenes that played out regardless of my input etc etc. Gordon Freeman was someone else, certainly not me, and I was just watching his life go by. The Doom3 marine was just a faceless number who took me from stale gameplay scenario to stale gameplay scenario via a series of predictable traps and gameplay styles. Neither were great games and, by the end, the only reason I was still playing was to see the game out and find out if there was an interesting ending or cutscene involved and to know I'd finished them. It certainly wasn't because I cared about or identified with anything within the game.

Deathmatcher said:

In Half Life 2, the urge to find a "cool weapon is not that huge", I think. The player is rather drawn into the well designed and threatening, mysterious environment, he "lives" the story, he wants to get out of City17 - just like Gordon Freeman. And just like Freeman, the player strives to find out more about the invasion of the combine and their motives and so on. So, the identification with the character in HL2 is closer than it is in Doom3.

I've never played HL2 yet, but I have played DOOM3 and I have played UNREAL (the very first one).
And yes, I'm inclined to agree with you.
DOOM3 didn't immerse me into the story deeply enough. I was more concerned about finding more ammo and getting the hell out of there, instead of sticking around and analyzing every scientist's personal log file to learn about the background environment.
I didn't feel any duty or any heroism to save an entire Mars colony, at all.

While in UNREAL, I was instantly drawn into the storyline as soon as I encountered the first Nali hostage of the Skaarj. I wanted to learn more about this Nali race, I wanted to know about their culture, their values, their religion, and stuff like that. In UNREAL, I actually took my time strolling around, peeking into every single nook and cranny and reading all the translator messages, and as I did so, I began feeling more and more compassion for the Nali as being the wretched underdogs, and I actually felt the purpose to defend their villages first before finding a ship to escape. Finding a ship to escape the planet became a very low-ranking priority by the time that I got to the game's half-way point.

I believe the concept behind Freeman conveys a far stronger synchronicity with the player. He has a Phd in theoretical sciences, specializes in anomalous materials, and did actually used to have a wife and a baby daughter, in fact, he has a whole life behind him, a life longer and more complex than mine. One would say this is not a character easy to identify with.

However, he is drawn as a tool for a major power shift in a shady future at City 17. We the players do not recognize our surroundings, he also does not. We do not understand what has happened, neither does he. We discover the world, its canon permeates in real time to both avatar and player. A past comes into play and collaborates to our survival skills (not to get close to headcrabs, melee zombies and evade their claws, shoot to the head, watch out for barnacles, etc.), but we have played this past, and we discovered all this side by side, again, with him.

I believe this is sort of an unfair comparison really, the Doom 3 marine is accustomed to weapons we only just discovered, he is accustomed to daily shifts at military complexes and laboratories, he has travelled through space, he is a civilian of an era we will most likely not understand in its sociological and political rulings. We can only relate so much to his character given the only truly empathy we share is the fear and surprise of the supernatural, but I think he was a bit too nameless and generic to go that far.

While I fondly approve of inmersion, I do not think it should come at the high cost of presenting a lead character that relates to the base line, to the common denominator. The most interesting and drawing characters in gaming for me have always had complex pasts, relationships and quirks, but hardly reacted automatically (and thus, unexpectedly) during gametime. Afterall, we all can relate to having things we regret, things we stand for, things that have hurts us, things that haunt us at night. Empathy is a great way to build a connection beyond the mechanics of fun gameplay and optimum performance.

Would you really hold onto a faceless, neutral, non-determined, hobby-less friend? No. You couldn't even connect to this person enough to call it a friend.
Would you like to be someone that fits that description? Also no.

Do I feel more for Garrett, Master Thief, who often acts out of my control in cinematics, or pulls witty remarks when I speak not, or to Gordon Freeman, striving to survive and figure it all out as much as I do? I don't have a clear answer to this. It gets muddy after the blurry line of extreme fun and compenetration.

Wife and son? Are you just saying things from your Half Life Fanfic? When does the story of Half Life or Half Life 2 ever say anything about Gordon? Isn't the point of the story to reveal as little about Gordon as possible?

I think hes talking about the picture of the baby in gordons locker in halflife1, thats an easter egg. And fyi duke nukem beats both of there asses.

Scuba Steve said:

Isn't the point of the story to reveal as little about Gordon as possible?

You do run on very low details about Gordon himself, but I'd say I know more about him than I do about Doomguy.

How can you identify yourself with someone you know absolutely nothing about? Neither of these games have any depth to their main character.

If what you really are talking about is the motivation to keep playing the game, then for me it was the outside environments in Half-Life 2 and the atmosphere in Doom3. I also find it hard to live the story in either game. Doom3 had a story that did its job, but it was never insanely interesting. Half-Life2 had a story? To me it seems they made a framework and forgot to fill it with content.

But as for character identification, I can't see how that is possible with either one of them. You could have found a better example like Max Payne or even Kyle Katarn.

err... seeing as how the game is played from the protagonist's viewpoint, through his very eyes, the protagonist is YOU. Giving the protagonist a name only serves to pull you out of the game, imho.

DOOM (not so much DOOM 3) actually does make it easier to feel in the Player's feet, and the reason is that the Player is nameless, the plot is very basic and straightforward, and your objectives are similar to the marine's: to get out of the strange and dangerous environment kicking as much butt as possible in the way, picking up arms and ammo as you go. ("If only you could get your hands around a plasma rifle or even a shotgun you could take a few down on your way out.") And there aren't any third party interventions that you might react oddly to, too. You end up avenging your fellows at the end as you crush the leaders of the invasion, but you do it merely because you end up there on your way through. DOOM II's plot weakens a bit with the fact that you are beamed orders (that as a player you might not give a shit about) but it's similar enough that you don't care much, and the texts are "aftertexts" that don't affect the game directly (unlike the interactions in DOOM 3 or Half-life 2, that are mostly ingame) so you can kind of ignore them and it doesn't make a difference.

I think that extraneous interaction that isn't necessary in a game is a distraction that weakens the experience.

Gibaholic said:

I think hes talking about the picture of the baby in gordons locker in halflife1

Could be a friend's child, a brother or sister's child, his godchild, his own brother/sister, even him... ;)

Shaviro said:

You could have found a better example like Max Payne or even Kyle Katarn.

Yes, both of those examples would be better..

myk said:

I think that extraneous interaction that isn't necessary in a game is a distraction that weakens the experience.

Interesting statement; are you refering to the interaction with NPCs in D3/HL2? Could you point this out a little further? Personally, I think that this kind of interaction leads to a richer, more satisfying game experience.

Enjay said:

Could be a friend's child, a brother or sister's child, his godchild, his own brother/sister, even him... ;)

Could be the picture that came with the frame. :D

Gibaholic said:

I think hes talking about the picture of the baby in gordons locker in halflife1, thats an easter egg. And fyi duke nukem beats both of there asses.

Duke Nukem was a fucking pussy until Duke 3d, in Duke 2 he was on Oprah or some shit.

Even then, he's just a rip-off of Ash.

BBG said:

Duke Nukem is a pussy

Dont say it too loud, he might hear you and kill you...

I'm not going to vote because I think you're missing a point slightly.

The reason the Marine in Doom 3 doesn't have a name is because it's supposed to draw you into the belief that it's you, the player. In thi way, What 'you' want, and what 'the character' wnats, become the same thing, and the need to survive is pretty much always at the top.

Now whether that worked or not for each person is entirely up to them, but the intention was there.

Overall I think there is more of a character there with Gordon Freeman with which to identify. You know from the background of Half-Life various things about Gordon, and you learn a little more as you progress. The open-endedness of the Doom 3 Marine doesn't really lend itself to character identification I think.

Having said that my vote would technically be the first option, but I'll refrain from voting for reasons stated.

Deathmatcher said:
Interesting statement; are you refering to the interaction with NPCs in D3/HL2? Could you point this out a little further? Personally, I think that this kind of interaction leads to a richer, more satisfying game experience.

Sort of; not just NPCs, but anything that creates a plane that's distinct from the "primary gameplay" will cause a disruption. To add new elements to a game, you must also change the game's objectives and rules, or else you're creating a weaker, eclectic game. The more primary the elements used in a game are, the better, since secondary elements are important only incidentially (some people might like them for a fancyful reason, which is generally tied to a state of technology, and not so much to how fun the game is.) If someone releases an FPS, they'll want to add some new feature in it to say "hey, this isn't just like any other FPS, it's got new unique stuff" then the nature of those additions are tied to the need to make something different, more than the fact that the game will play better (especially as an FPS, which is a fighting game.) If you're going to have NPCs, the game must change fundamentally, it shouldn't really be an FPS anymore. There could be shooting, but if NPCs are to be present, they are going to play a very important and consistent role.

It seems to me games get old quickly nowadays mainly for one reason; they need to add elements for the sake of novelty ("the next big thing" "the best game ever" "a unique experience") seeking a wide audience that'll placate different people, and they can't or won't create solid and more minimalist (or internally consistent) games because these would be for a limited audience and for a long time, which lessens sales dramatically, especially when one considers hardware and specs change very quickly, so games must sell lots of copies in a short time.

Identification with a character occurs when we read a story, in an empathic way, from another perspective; for actual "identification" in a game, the game itself must move us to stay immersed in it, and that's more a factor of the game being intriguing (or basically fun) than some idea of believing we are someone or something. That's secondary, if its an element at all (in an RPG it would be.)

No offense myk, but you really need to work on making your points short and sweet.

Why? Sometimes a long winded post is needed to get a full and proper argument or point across. For example, search the ZDoom.org forums for "Football" and user name "Enjay"

baronofhell said:
No offense myk, but you really need to work on making your points short and sweet.

One more personal troll like that, and you're banned, and any sort of answer or reply from you to this post (other than perhaps a PM or an email) will be taken as such.

DemonDemon said:

Could be the picture that came with the frame. :D

Heh, yes, that gets my vote. :)

TheDarkArchon said:

"Football" and user name "Enjay"

With any luck they were in "off topic" and have long since been auto-pruned. Though the sentiment is still very much there. :)

I have only played Doom 3, but I only play necessary weapons... or weapons I'm caught reloading during an ambush. Being a story guy, I always consider what would I do if I were the actual marine. So I think I qualify as being close to the Doom Marine.

EDIT: I wanted to check: only play D3, strong with marine/
Rather than only D3, weak with marine... :( my bad.

EDIT 2 :

Shaviro said
How can you identify yourself with someone you know absolutely nothing about? Neither of these games have any depth to their main character.

Replace his non-existant experiences with yours, imagine you are the person - pretend - think of what you could have done to end up in that position...

:D IMAGINE :D

That, in my opinion, is why you can be a nameless character in a game, you can make up his story, even based upon your life.

... however, you give that character a name and there is need for depth.