The largest thing that sets video games apart from other forms of digital media is that they have the potential to be deeply interactive. Therefore, the player needs to have some sort of a sense of agency in both the mechanics and narrative. The simplest way to do this is to create a “player character,” and whether it is customizable or not, that character needs to make an impact in most scenes in which it appears.
Needless to say, practically by the definition of a game, the player character or player party should be the primary driving force in the game’s mechanics and gameplay. However, in writing the narrative of a video game, it is somewhat of a pitfall to sweep aside the player character in a passive roles in cut-scenes and other narrative events. This mistake could arise for a few reasons. The one that stands out most in my mind is a fear of stepping on the toes of the player. As in, a fear of making a player character perform actions that make the player think, “I would never do that,” or something similar. Many address this problem by designing games with branching dialogue trees or morality systems so that the player understands that they are playing is a certain archetype.
Even if the player character is a set, non-customizable protagonist, it needs to have agency in the narrative. Many players, and this is especially the case for RPG players, play video games to interact with the world of the game, and the player character is their proxy. If the player character isn’t doing anything, then the player will feel that immediately. It will evoke thoughts like, “Nothing is happening in this game.” For a game’s narrative to be compelling, it needs to be a collection of scenarios in which the player character acts and reacts to its situations.
One of the most recent games I have played that fails to give the player character an active role is Pokemon Sword/Shield. Now, I’ve liked Pokemon since I was a kid with a Game Boy, and I understand what I should expect from the narrative from one of these games, but this latest entry into the franchise feels especially weak to me in a narrative sense. This is because the player does not do anything in the narrative. You watch your rivals, Hop, Marnie, and Bede change as characters. And you watch the adults try to take care of any narrative conflict that arises. Often, the player is brushed off and told something like, “Don’t worry about it, so just go do the gym challenge.” This is not the right way to treat your player or player character. In fact, it is actively removing the player from what would make this game unique in the franchise, as the core model and gameplay are largely the same, resulting in a hollow experience. Whether the player character is a mute RPG protagonist, or a well-developed character, it needs to take an active role in a game’s narrative.
On the other hand, the original Mass Effect is a game that sticks out in my mind that grants the player character a good amount of agency in the story. In Mass Effect, the player controls Commander Shepherd, who very early on takes control of situations, calls shots when appropriate, and fights many kinds of adversity. In other words, Commander Shepherd takes action in response to his/her situations. He/she does not allow the other party members to just take him/her along for the ride.
Overall, the games with great narratives are the ones that employ the player character as a force in the story. Doing this makes it so that the player is experiencing the game, not just watching the game.
If you’re curious about how all my nonsense actually plays out in a game, check out Draconic Echoes: The Ardent War on Steam!