I'm doubling down on Henry being the second protagonist of the game. He is just too weak/pathetic to have the ability to make a choice that impacts where the story goes. Thus the game never gives the player any option of choice when it comes to him.
If you look at the game as a whole, Henry is giving just as much backstory, importance and frankly actually giving his perspective that its hard to argue he is not the male lead of the game. The biggest difference between him vs Mark is the attention to how the events are affecting Henry.
The prologue of the game sets it up as the story of the 4 main characters. Angelica, Henry, Mark and Aria. Once you get to the main game however the roles really become more identified.
Angelica- Female protagonist, character controlled by the player.
Henry- Male protagonist
Mark- Male antagonist
Aria- Female antagonist
At the core this game truly is about the marriage/lives of Henry & Angelica and the tests/tribulations that challenge the marriage with Mark/Aria doing whatever they can to break it up for their own personal gains.
I'm not against Angelica being the MC except the problem is she is only the CO-main character. Thinking otherwise means you haven't been payong attention to the story being told.
Exactly. Gameplay wise, yes, it's Angelica's Story told through her eyes, however, narratively, It IS an ensemble cast story, with those 4 being the core of it. & that distinction between the gameplay & the narrative is an incredibly important one. Angelica is just our unreliable narrator into which to view this world, but the story is indeed about all of them.
Hitting a bit more on my other point, I want to make another illustration to clarify. I watched an interview with John C McGinley not to long ago, where the focal point of the interview wasn't his body of work, no discussion of his role in Platoon, or as one of the Bobs in Office Space, or as Dr Cox on Scrubs, or Stan Against Evil, none of that, it was all about his advocacy work with kids with Down Syndrome & about his life as the father of a child with Downs. Now there was a story he mentioned in that interview that I thought really touches on what I'm trying to convey here.
Before I get into that, speaking of Scrubs, I think that TV show is a great example of this concept. Now sure, there were other hospital based shows that had more widespread success, like ER, Grays Anatomy, etc... But Scrubs itself was still wildly successful in it's own right, running for nearly a decade & racking up it's own share of awards & a very devoted fanbase. The big difference between that & it's contemporaries that with shows like ER, it was always very "sooper serious" All the characters were these stoic, driven doctors & everything was comically over the top super serious, tense, & constantly dramatic. Serious dramatic moods, dialogue & mannerisms all the time, (much like most soap operas). Personally I think that's why, despite the success of ER & a couple others of that same model, All the dozens of other shows that tried to copy that model flopped. Great for drama, for a little while. Then it get's old. When everything is serious && dramatic, nothing is serious & dramatic.
However, with Scrubs, What I think set that show apart, was that Bill Lawrence didn't approach it with the idea in mind of writing about drama, or comedy, etc... He set to it with the idea of writing about people. The way that show was written, The pacing, the dialogue, the way the characters were written, how they interacted with each other, they felt like real people. It was written in a way that drew you in & made you feel like you were in that world watching these people's lives, almost like you were a part of it. They felt less like plot devices & more like fully fleshed out people. Additionally, Bill used the principal of balance well. Instead of keeping the tone constantly serious & intense & constantly dramatic, like other shows did, he opted to keep most of the runtime of each episode lighthearted & fun, with all the quirks, jokes & just general banter & what not you see in a close knit workplace like that. That way, when shit did get serious, when there was a dramatic moment, it REALLY hit. It resonated. It had real impact because when the baseline is constant intense drama, it loses all meaning, but when the baseline is lighthearted & fun, it really stands out & hits hard when it get's dramatic. & I think that's why the dramatic moments on that show carry the gravity & meaning that they do for fans of the franchise. Because it was there when it was appropriate, & was gone when it wasn't. That's why, when it comes to "traditional" NTR games for example, I always argue that you NEED to have the more redeeming paths for balance. Because the dark & light routes don't oppose each other, they compliment each other & give each other more depth & meaning.
Look at the episode "My Life in 4 cameras" as an example. It's an over the top, lighthearted presentation in a classic cheesy sitcom format because one of the patients was a, (fictional), writer on Cheers, (a sitcom back in the 80s). & it even had the cheesy happy ending where Dr Cox Balanced the budget through a typical sitcom plot device of a talent show, & the patent they were mainly focused on didn't really have cancer, his xrays were mixed up with someone else. HAPPY ENDING YAY... Until the patient crashed, coded & died pulling JD back to reality & Dr Cox really did have to fire someone to balance the budget. It's the happy, lighthearted meat of it that makes the grim reality of the ending have real meaning & resonance. That makes it hit hard. It wouldn't have done that if it was just 1 unrelenting tone. That show was more slice of life with characters that were designed to make the audience feel attached & invested in them, so the audience really felt it on the ups & downs of the characters life. & the ups have no meaning without the downs, the downs have no meaning without the ups. Creators need to understand this.
Getting back to that John C McGinley interview, The story was about how on the prior Christmas, his son actually started singing the 12 days of Christmas, & everyone jumped in & sang along. Now, looking at it as plot devices, One would ask, "What's the big deal? It's Christmas, people sing Christmas carols, Really sounds like something out of a cheesy Hallmark movie. So what's so interesting or compelling about that?" Well, keep in mind, His son has Downs Syndrome & is largely non verbal. So drawing out verbal communication from his son is a constant struggle & something that they really foster in him as much as they possibly can. It's why parents are so excited for their kid's first steps, or their first word, or the first time they go to the potty on their own. It's not about walking, talking or pissing, it's about these kids reaching these milestones. These big leaps in physical & neurological development. THAT'S why they are big deals, because these are BIG steps forward for the kids. The same goes for John's kid taking the initiative & starting to sing a Christmas Carol oh his own. This instance of self initiated verbal activity & interaction from his child that he struggles so much to connect with verbally & to push forward in his verbal development is like mana from heaven, not because he's singing a Christmas song, but because he's initiating verbal contact.
& THAT, Ladies & Gentlemen, is the story. A father & his beloved developmentally disabled son, & the ups & down's, wins & losses that they experience as he raises him & tries to prepare him as best he can for the world, the bond & love that they share, THAT is the story. The big step of his son with the Christmas carol, that's just a slice of it. In short, it's a story about people. Those 2 people. I hope this makes better sense now.
