Centralising Chloe & the Struggle of Player Choice Written by David McNeill
I
don’t think it should be especially controversial to suggest Life Is Strange’s success or failure as a vehicle for story is underpinned by the relationship between Max and Chloe. The opening act of the game centralises Chloe: she’s the reason Max develops the ability to time travel, and she forms the inciting incident for the narrative at large. Writ in unmissable ink across the story is the theme of consequence, the exploration of choice, and a simple question: is Chloe worth more than the people around her. The game constantly puts Chloe’s desires in opposition with the people around her, and Max must decide whose interests she’ll support. By centralising Chloe’s world view, Max is forced to react to Chloe’s perspective, rather than the stimulus in front of her. By the time you, the player, can decide how you feel about a decision, the game has already precipitated events through Chloe’s particular brand of self-serving nihilism. Which isn’t to say there is an inherent problem with associating with, or agreeing with, Chloe. Plenty of folks have worldviews that differ from our own and plenty of bad folk do good things, and plenty of good folks do bad things. The fulcrum of the Chloe problem is not one of ethics, but of choice. Video games are, cliche as it, one of the only mediums where you get to decide how and when to do things - even in a linear narrative like Death Stranding or even Ninja Gaiden, the player’s ability and requirement to interact with the game is what creates unique experiences, and empowers games writers to explore empathy, sympathy, and themes in a rich, deep way that film and prose cannot. Games do not hinge on choice, but a narrative driven mystery that simulates Telltale’s inhouse style, one that
14
DECEMBER 2019 | LEVEL STORY
