143 réponses à ce sujet

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Thomas Andresen wrote...
The stories in any game you didn't write from scratch yourself are never yours, and blank-slate player characters can never work in a story-driven* game.

That's bullcraps. All classics story-driven RPGs using D&D ruleset are blank-slate player characters and it never became an issue before. Have you played The Forgotten Realm? How about Neverwinter Nights? or Icewind Dale? or Realm of Arkania? or The Exile?

Thomas Andresen wrote...

Whenever I'm delivered a blank-slate player character, I stop caring about the story.

You should stick with Final Fantasy series so you can follow the characters and story all you want.

[Iakus]

 My character

Your world

Our story

[PsychoBlonde]

 I see this sort of question as essentially nonsense.  If I want to experience "my story", you know what I do?  I WRITE A STORY.  This is a fundamentally different process and experience from what I get out of playing a video game, so I wouldn't even describe the question in this kind of way.  What I'd say instead is:

What *kind* of visit am I having in this game world?

And here you have myriad options.  Am I a a clueless noob who fell out of the sky and now has to figure out how to get around and survive in this strange new world?  Am I some kind of remote operator whose lightning reflexes are all that stand between my avatar and destruction?  Am I some sort of embodied conscience who steers this man's morality?  Am I some combination of the above?  Something completely different?

All can be valid and valuable ways of interacting with a game world.  Why demand just one?

[LinksOcarina]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

 I see this sort of question as essentially nonsense.  If I want to experience "my story", you know what I do?  I WRITE A STORY.  This is a fundamentally different process and experience from what I get out of playing a video game, so I wouldn't even describe the question in this kind of way.  What I'd say instead is:

What *kind* of visit am I having in this game world?

And here you have myriad options.  Am I a a clueless noob who fell out of the sky and now has to figure out how to get around and survive in this strange new world?  Am I some kind of remote operator whose lightning reflexes are all that stand between my avatar and destruction?  Am I some sort of embodied conscience who steers this man's morality?  Am I some combination of the above?  Something completely different?

All can be valid and valuable ways of interacting with a game world.  Why demand just one?

I think it is more about expectations of what people think works, versus the reality of the situation.

No narrative driven RPG has ever been fully theirs, but more and more we see the fabrication of the story through player actions, while the plot changes cosmetically. The thing people object to is when the plot doesn't change.

What needs to be realized is that it never did. The story is what changes, while the overall plot stays the same. Origins for example has a very straight-forward plot; you become a warden, gather allies and slay an archdemon. What changes is the makeup of the story, the details of it. So we are a mage who is recruited, we save the elves from werewolfs this time around, support Harrowmont and so forth. Even the fate of our main chaacter is a detail in the story.

But the plot stays the same. We still become a warden. We still fight the archdemon. We can change the story, but not the plot. And yes, that is the difference that people, I feel at least, is what they object to. Even though they don't have that choice. 

So really, it was never fully the players story, just like it is never fully the developers story. It's both, and both sides need to reconize that fact. 

[Sacred_Fantasy]

LinksOcarina wrote...
So really, it was never fully the players story, just like it is never fully the developers story. It's both, and both sides need to reconize that fact.

Indeed. The developers need to draw a line. They shouldn't attempt to cross the border by taking control over my PC. I don't pay them to play my story. Nor do I expect them to roleplaying the character while I do nothing but combat and move.  I pay them to write a plot for my character to journey and a role to play and alter the plot through REAL choices and consequences!

Sigh, I really really wish BioWare would just go back to D&D experience of Baldur Gate and Neverwinter Nights so they could never interfere with player story and character. But there is no point dwelling on the past. At least, they did promise, they'll pay more attention to player agency and character agency in DA 3.  

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 09 décembre 2012 - 05:32 .

[Pandaman102]

Not to by cynical or anything, but they did "promise" player agency for the ME trilogy, then turn around and claim artistic license and that they had no idea there was such a demand. What makes this promise any more, well, promising?

Just except it to be blatantly railroaded, if it turns out to actually have choices that matter then you can be pleasantly surprised, if it doesn't you won't be disappointed. It's like the SNL skit "Lowered Expectations."

[TMZuk]

I prefer to create my own character. That being said, I also love when a game is responsive to my characters past. That is why I thought the Origins a fantastic and innovative compromise.

ME had you choose a few bits and pieces, but alas, without doing much with it. I'm presently replaying ME and ME2 with Shep's mum alive, and it's funny but has way to little impact. Especially in ME2. Apparantly Shep has time to solve everyones personal problems, but not to call home. One mail after being dead for two years. Talk about a wasted opportunity for RP.

I was never able to get into The Witcher, because Geralt didn't interest me. It was a shame, because there was many interesting facets to the game, although also many juvenile ones. For the same reason I have never given Alpha Protocol or Dead Space a shot, nor Deus Ex.

Why it is so, I don't know. To many years creating characters at PnP games, perhaps. But it does kill my joy when I cannot decide my characters background.

[Bernhardtbr]

That´s exactly why you liked Origins and not Witcher. You could choose a background for the character. I bet that if you could only play, say, the human noble you would be dissapointed just as you were with Geralt - probably even more, since the character would be more shallow. If you were forced to use that white hair you would hate it even more heh.

The advantage of not having a blank-state character is that the past can influence the game in many interesting ways and give depth to the protagonist. That´s was also the appeal of ME - you were defining the "past" with each game you played (through it didn´t work as we expected in ME 3). While with blank-state, the only thing that matters is the "now". There are pros and cons to both approaches.

Modifié par Bernhardtbr, 09 décembre 2012 - 02:52 .

[MrCousland99]

Bernhardtbr wrote...

That´s exactly why you liked Origins and not Witcher. You could choose a background for the character. I bet that if you could only play, say, the human noble you would be dissapointed just as you were with Geralt - probably even more, since the character would be more shallow. If you were forced to use that white hair you would hate it even more heh.

The advantage of not having a blank-state character is that the past can influence the game in many interesting ways and give depth to the protagonist. That´s was also the appeal of ME - you were defining the "past" with each game you played (through it didn´t work as we expected in ME 3). While with blank-state, the only thing that matters is the "now". There are pros and cons to both approaches.

Hey!...Geralt was awesome.

[LinksOcarina]

Bernhardtbr wrote...

That´s exactly why you liked Origins and not Witcher. You could choose a background for the character. I bet that if you could only play, say, the human noble you would be dissapointed just as you were with Geralt - probably even more, since the character would be more shallow. If you were forced to use that white hair you would hate it even more heh.

The advantage of not having a blank-state character is that the past can influence the game in many interesting ways and give depth to the protagonist. That´s was also the appeal of ME - you were defining the "past" with each game you played (through it didn´t work as we expected in ME 3). While with blank-state, the only thing that matters is the "now". There are pros and cons to both approaches.

Does that really make the character shallow though? 

Most of BioWare's style of protagonists, with the exception of Origins, have pre-determined backgrounds, or at least pre-determined starting points which does make the background somewhat irrelevent. It adds character yes, but it is wholly flavor text. Geralt is in the same boat as he has a background and it is the same effect as say, the Bhaalspawn, Revan, or Commander Shepard.

If the difference is you choose a part of your background to make it somewhat unique, then I guess I can understand that as being a con. But it doesn't give depth to the protagonist, it just gives them a character that is not fully in your control in most cases. 

[J.C. Blade]

Whatever else may be said for Baldur's Gate, the Bhaalspawn wasn't obliged to be grateful to Gorion for saving and raising them, or to love him as a father figure; they weren't obliged to love or care for the "little" sister Imoen. You could decide what your Bhaalspawn on current playthrough felt for these people. In some dialogue you were able to express that. This is something I very much appreciate in older games as I couldn't stand forced friendships in ME series and DA2.

Had BG been made today you can bet you'd have a "Father! Nooooooo!" scene shoved in the beginning promptly deciding your character's relationship with Gorion.

[LinksOcarina]

J.C. Blade wrote...

Whatever else may be said for Baldur's Gate, the Bhaalspawn wasn't obliged to be grateful to Gorion for saving and raising them, or to love him as a father figure; they weren't obliged to love or care for the "little" sister Imoen. You could decide what your Bhaalspawn on current playthrough felt for these people. In some dialogue you were able to express that. This is something I very much appreciate in older games as I couldn't stand forced friendships in ME series and DA2.

Had BG been made today you can bet you'd have a "Father! Nooooooo!" scene shoved in the beginning promptly deciding your character's relationship with Gorion.

But is that relationship forced, or actually gained? Early on in Baldur's Gate there is little to be said about any relationships really, other than the flavor text of your background which always depicts Gorion as a fatherly figure regardless of the two lines you do say to him.  Imoen's relationship is always fairly close. You can be crass or rude to her but she still out and out follows you for a time until you cut her loose. 

I don't know, honestly the impression I always got when I played Baldur's Gate was that regardless of the relationship you wanted as a player, the Bhaalspawn had an established relationship for the character. But that may just be me interpreting the text. 

[J.C. Blade]

It is true that the background text could be interpreted as such but it was left to the player to pick and choose what they thought about said characters, BG2 especially allowed for you to pick the reason in your hunt for Irenicus - you either wanted to save Imoen or kill the guy for vivisecting you alive (of course, the third option to simply hightail out of there would've been nice...).

My point being that even if the game showed Gorion as fatherly old man and Imoen as nice kid sister, it also didn't shy away from letting player say that they hated these two people and owned them nothing, and more importantly - it doesn't contradict once player has made their choice. There doesn't need to be a big cinematic scene and story exposition driving the point home on how much your character hates/loves/is indifferent to them and the world should know it complete with dramatic music - you knowing it, playing it and the game not pushing it should be enough.

In contrast, Garrus is Shepard best friend, Liara is all but joined to Shepard's hip, Bethany is the little sister Hawke dotes on, Carver is the one Hawke always butts heads with, Gamlen is the untrustworthy uncle Hawke always looks at with suspicion...

I don't mind all these relationships but only if I'm playing a fully pre-defined character. I don't want to play tug-o-war with the writers and realize that something I have envisioned as this character's trait is not going to fly half-way through the game because they already have a defined opinion on it - probably in form of auto-dialogue or "cinematic presentation".

Modifié par J.C. Blade, 12 décembre 2012 - 08:05 .

[kumquats]

It doesn't matter if I get a character like Geralt of Rivia or if I get a Grey Warden.
The character I play in those RPGs takes total control of what's going to happen, and I try to understand what this character would do.

So it's never my story, it's always my characters story and I'm only along for the ride.

[sea-]

Hawke is a bad character because Hawke has no character. Hawke is a weird compromise between a set person and a player avatar. Same goes for Shepard. You can't do both at once and still be successful. If you have a set character, then that character has to be someone you can identify with and understand the motives and emotions of.

Geralt in The Witcher works well because even though you can specify his personality to a degree, most of the decisions you make are in an ethical grey area and thus tend to be something you could see him doing in any situation - they don't really change who he is.

If you really do want to do the "blank slate" thing... well, to be fair, I find that boring these days. Way too much interrogative dialogue, not enough forward momentum. Blank slates work better for systems-driven game worlds, i.e. Daggerfall and Morrowind, where you can imagine all the personality you want to and infer it from your own actions as well as anything more explicit like specific dialogue options.

Dragon Age is not a systems-driven game, but a narrative-driven one, so I would say that the idea of a set character with set motives is much more fitting. Leave the decision-making to gameplay and engage the player on more levels than simply moral or flavoring for personality - if moral choices do come up they should be driven by gameplay motives, not story ones.

Modifié par sea-, 12 décembre 2012 - 04:41 .

[SpunkyMonkey]

Great reading some of the opinions. Whatever your view I think that the greatest shame seems to be the disappearance of BG style games where characters are created from scratch. Those with a pre-determined Shepard/Cloud Strife style character can still be great, but the current lack of D&D "create from scratch" games is a big shame.

[LinksOcarina]

J.C. Blade wrote...

It is true that the background text could be interpreted as such but it was left to the player to pick and choose what they thought about said characters, BG2 especially allowed for you to pick the reason in your hunt for Irenicus - you either wanted to save Imoen or kill the guy for vivisecting you alive (of course, the third option to simply hightail out of there would've been nice...).

My point being that even if the game showed Gorion as fatherly old man and Imoen as nice kid sister, it also didn't shy away from letting player say that they hated these two people and owned them nothing, and more importantly - it doesn't contradict once player has made their choice. There doesn't need to be a big cinematic scene and story exposition driving the point home on how much your character hates/loves/is indifferent to them and the world should know it complete with dramatic music - you knowing it, playing it and the game not pushing it should be enough.

In contrast, Garrus is Shepard best friend, Liara is all but joined to Shepard's hip, Bethany is the little sister Hawke dotes on, Carver is the one Hawke always butts heads with, Gamlen is the untrustworthy uncle Hawke always looks at with suspicion...

I don't mind all these relationships but only if I'm playing a fully pre-defined character. I don't want to play tug-o-war with the writers and realize that something I have envisioned as this character's trait is not going to fly half-way through the game because they already have a defined opinion on it - probably in form of auto-dialogue or "cinematic presentation".

But how Gorion and Imoen react is the same way Carver and Garrus react, they are in-character the way the story demands it. The cinematics are irrelevent to telling that, but the characterizations are strong in all of the games to allow those relationships to be present. That said, you shouldn't always be influential regarding their journeys. You can still hate Carver and Bethany, hell you can kill them both. You don't have to join with Liara, instead she becomes a confidant vs a close lover. And Garrus, one of two characters with you through three games, was always in a student role to Shepard as a teacher. That admiration and trust and friendship was a crux of his characterization, as was finding his center under Shepards guidence. 

It is just something that the plot has to control, basically. As an example, I just finished playing The Walking Dead, and I came to a conclusion regarding this, that the story is what we make of it during games with choices, but we don't fully control the story because its fixed to a set narrative. Characters we save may die later and we have no way of saving them twice. How we respond to people is wholly irrelevent in the end to the climax of the plot, which will end in one of two ways regardless of what we do, and in some ways contradicts how we may percieve characters.

But this is where the trade-off comes from. Lee in The Walking Dead is essentially similar to Hawke, to Shepard, to the Bhaalspawn, all of these that are both blank slates and pre-determined because of our choices. There will always be contradictions but  it still is a breeding ground for role-playing and drama, even in games that are not RPGs like The Walking Dead. The only thing fabricated is how the story is told, and this is where our choices come in because that shapes the storyline. 

[J.C. Blade]

Just one thing: the Bhaalspawn is not a pre-determent character. You're a child of a god raised in a library - that's it. Everything else is up to you.

As for Gorion, you speak once at the beginning of the game and all of the options vary on respect. You can be condescending to Imoen in BG2 and she calls you mean and "not what she expected you to be". The difference is that the game doesn't rely on dialogue between companions to drive the point forward, there is no sisterly bonding that the game tries to shove onto the player. The game doesn't try to contradict you if you do not want to be close to these people.

Neither Garrus' nor Liara's characterization should hinge on the main character, nor should Shepard be burdened with being a teacher and a confidante to them. They should be able to stand on their own regardless of (name) Shepard's (players n-th playthrough) opinion on them.

I personally hate Shepard as she is presented since ME2. I hate that she's the "Alliance Girl", I dislike both Garrus and Liara intensely and still have to put up with them despite ME1 allowing me to avoid and insult them both for 90% of the game. Shepard had suddenly sprouted this personality in ME2/3 I knew nothing about and which contradicted everything up to that point. For Hawke, It doesn't matter that I can kill Bethany, what matters is that character I'm supposed to roleplay loves her, and will love her on every playthrough. I can't change that. I have never rolled a rouge or a warrior because I don't want to play a character who would move the mountains for her safety.

And I don't have anything against pre-determent characters. Lee from Walking Dead is one, Geralt is one, Deus Ex has one and I don't mind playing them because I know they are not mine in any way, shape or form and I am essentially playing through a book and just there along for a ride. I'm not going to bother with trying to create their whole personalty, drive, motivations and beliefs, the way I did for some Surana or Bhaalspawn, or Shepard back in ME1 when you could do that.

(Also, the Walking Dead is a point and click game, a P&C game with quick-time events and some branching choices but still a point-and-click adventure game. Focused narrative is what P&C games are all about.)

All I'm saying is that I don't want the 70-30% deal, with those 70% being hidden in a fog, when it comes to character creation. I'll either play the "bare bones" character or a fully predefined one. Anything in between is not something I'll ever spend my money on again, no matter how much marketing tries to sell it as "your own character"; they did that to me with Shepard amd Hawke and it burned.

Modifié par J.C. Blade, 13 décembre 2012 - 05:47 .