Single-player games shouldn't have create-a-character features

[Bat Vader]

I disagree. Look at games like Baldur's Gate, Pillars of Eternity, and Divinity: Original Sin. They would never be able to work in video game form if they didn't have a character creator. Creating a character helps immerse me into a world more because I was able to create that character and wasn't just assigned a pre-made character.

Plus I don't think it's right to remove a feature that many people including myself enjoy having in a game when there are already many single player games out there already that don't have character creators.

 

[[Kira Must Die]]

I'm a big fan of character creators. A lot of the time the character creators are the best part of the game for me, or at least the part of the game I spend the most time in.

So yeah, couldn't disagree more.

 

[Chaos Isaac]

You'll find that Witcher 3 did by far the best of the series in characterizing Geralt more closely to his personality in the books. Witcher 3 dumps the amnesiac plotline as well as the 'bang everyone' thing from Witcher 1-2 in favour of a more character-driven storyline that works pretty damned well in portraying him as a compelling person. The absolutely amazing facial animation and spot-on voice acting certainly help as well.

Besides, as someone else mentioned, as awesome as Geralt is if there's any 'chosen one' in the Witcher setting it's actually Ciri (Seen above). Geralt is basically Obi-Wan to Ciri's Luke Skywalker. Many of the powerful people on a first-name basis with Geralt are only on said basis either because of his relationship with Ciri or the other important woman in his life, Yennefer, both of whom could likely wipe the floor with Geralt if it ever came to that.

Unfortunately, three is a little late for me to not already have a negative disposition towards him. Especially if he turns out to be a good character, i'm just gonna be more pissed like, "Oh. You wait 'til now to deliver that. Thanks."

 

[CrystalShadow]

Mmm. I can see the argument you're making, but I have to say I have a visceral, rather direct reaction anyone that goes around saying games shouldn't do X.

It doesn't seem like a good idea even if said with the best of intentions. (obviously, I'm not including obviously very controversial things, like rape and such, though I would argue even that stuff is enough of a grey area that outright saying this stuff shouldn't be in games seems to be going a step too far.)

I understand the character aspect though.

To me, that's yet another symptom of overly simple AI though. A generic character stops being generic if you can give it some personality as a player.

That's only possible if the game, writing, acting, AI and so on is clever enough to actually give a decent amount of scope for you to actually define a personality of your own.

Of course, that's rarely even remotely the case. What happens instead is a story written in such a way as to make the way the world reacts to the player as bland and generic as possible, so that whatever you do it won't seem out of place with the way NPC's and the like react to you...
But... That seems to undermine any sense of meaning behind being able to choose your own character in a game.
Surely, the point of that is that your behaviour (and maybe even the appearance you chose) DOES have an effect in the world?

Like, in generic fantasy X, maybe there's a lot of prejudice against elves.
If you choose to play as an elf, then surely the world should react to this.

Maybe a 'love interest' has a thing for green hair?

Whatever. But, somehow game devs are afraid of actually attempting to get the world to react to anything at all about you if you have the ability to choose your own character.

How about a conversation wheel where the options aren't good/bad/neutral, but say, Angry/Sad/Sarcastic/flirty etc.

You know. Some actual choices that hinge on something OTHER than morality?
(heh. Just had the mental image of a moodometer. Actually... Why not? Why just have conversation choices. Let you choose emotions for your character too. Sure, interface limitations will make that a little clunky, but wouldn't it be interesting if you walk around looking all sad and moody, and the NPC's actually react to that?
I mean... Surely it's worth a try, right?)

Ah, but asking for much in the way of risky design decisions from AAA devs is probably a bit much.
Maybe an indie will try it or something...

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well OP you are mixing a few things in there that aren't related, the reason you see a plot twist coming is bad writing, the reason you get "chosen one" syndrome and a world that only revolves around the player is again bad writing.
Witcher shines because it comes from a very well written book series that has a world unfold on it's own with/without and despite the protagonists best efforts to fix shit. Meanwhile most game writers still operate from the stance of "what should we show the player", which inevitably creates an amusement park that only gets going once you sit on a ride.

Pre-defined/created characters... it actually doesn't matter. No the random player creations don't actually become game characters, they are merely an observer vessel. But you can just have an extra pre-defined character the player can interact with, nothing lost. You could have an apprentice roll going with Geralt just the same, so getting both character creation and a written character.

 

[Popido]

It really depends how much effort is put into making your character feel like part of the world. Customization raises problems and those can be fixed, theres no persisting problems there. Even Geralt's story is told by player customizing his every actions. But, yes. Budget wise its sensible to avoid any complications when the focus is on telling the story.

The player NEEDS to be interesting to have a story to tell. The other option is to make everything else around the player interesting, like WoW's themepark experience or Myst.

Players have learned to hate the word Chosen One, because its usually lazy and forced on duty. Its a very random title to be bestowed in most stories. Just avoiding the use of the word is a good enough change. Its a cliche, and cliches are ment to be used. Or rather, unavoidable to not be used. Again, it all comes down on the quality of how they're used.

In Witcher 3's case, the job is good.

 

[Vicarious Reality]

That is not role playing, that is just playing.

The chosen oneism sure gets annoying after about five times

 

[Casual Shinji]

To elaborate, in single-player games where the player creates their own character, it's almost always very obvious that the world was designed in such a way to revolve around them. They're "the Chosen One" or "the only one who can save the world", everyone they meet treats them reverentially, and nothing ever gets done until the player does it. Bioware's (and to lesser extent, Bethesda's) RPGs are the most guilty of this, IMO.

And so is The Witcher 3.

The game is fantastic 'n all, but the protagonist is still the typical most awesomest big dick super fella around who is the driving force behind nearly everything. And seeing as this is a game it's hard to avoid the latter part of that anyway, since we as the player want to feel like we can make a difference. We want to leave our mark on this world and impact it in some significant way.

Name one game, RPG or not, where the player-controlled character isn't the one who gets all the shit done...

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

To elaborate, in single-player games where the player creates their own character, it's almost always very obvious that the world was designed in such a way to revolve around them. They're "the Chosen One" or "the only one who can save the world", everyone they meet treats them reverentially, and nothing ever gets done until the player does it. Bioware's (and to lesser extent, Bethesda's) RPGs are the most guilty of this, IMO.

And so is The Witcher 3.

The game is fantastic 'n all, but the protagonist is still the typical most awesomest big dick super fella around who is the driving force behind nearly everything. And seeing as this is a game it's hard to avoid the latter part of that anyway, since we as the player want to feel like we can make a difference. We want to leave our mark on this world and impact it in some significant way.

Name one game, RPG or not, where the player-controlled character isn't the one who gets all the shit done...

You have to admit that'd be a pretty fun spin on an RPG. The actual heroes are getting shit done elsewhere, and at best you are caught in their wake. I feel like it has been done but I can't name a game off the top of my head.

OT: I think both can work. It depends on the game. I think with proper writing, a set character is always going to deliver a better storyline than one you design among a ton of options. However, both can be appealing for different reasons. It just depends on the game.

I love Geralt, myself. He is part of why I love the games he is in, especially Witcher 3. I'd like the games a lot less if it were generic self-created Witcher and not Geralt.

PS: I think most of what you are worried about comes from the fact that video game writers can't write worth a damn. It doesn't matter if you give them a set character or a player made one. They can't write either and just fumble around, unable to characterize anyone properly.

 

[thedragon232]

I see a few replys that point to bad writing but I think this is related more to what the player is looking to get out of the game.

In Witcher the player is experiancing Geralts story. It is the story of an established character with their own backstory and personality. But in Fallout the player is creating their own story. With the create-a-character you are not just choosing a face but the character as a whole and roleplaying as that character in the game. This comes down completely to prefrence.

 

[Zhukov]

Ehhhhhhhh.

I do agree with you to a point. I think customizable protagonists are an obstacle to good storytelling.

The stories end up having to accommodate Generic Hero Possessed Of No Particular Traits Who is Probably Good At Killing Stuff rather than an actual character with beliefs and goals and flaws and preferences.

Also, since the character is often a sort of player-created Mary Sue the game frequently ends up going to great lengths to lick the player's boots by proxy, because god forbid the player's precious self-insert/fulfillment-fantasy ever suffer a setback or legitimate criticism or a personal flaw.

However I also think it's a bit much to say games "shouldn't" do it. Lots of people clearly enjoy playing single player games with create-a-character protagonists. Hell, I won't deny getting awfully attached to my 'main' Shepard. There's a market for it, a rather large market given the sales of Skyrim and its ilk.

 

[Lil_Rimmy]

Ehhhhhhhh.

I do agree with you to a point. I think customizable protagonists are an obstacle to good storytelling.

The stories end up having to accommodate Generic Hero Possessed Of No Particular Traits Who is Probably Good At Killing Stuff rather than an actual character with beliefs and goals and flaws and preferences.

Also, since the character is often a sort of player-created Mary Sue the game frequently ends up going to great lengths to lick the player's boot by proxy, because god forbid the player's precious self-insert/fulfillment-fantasy ever suffer a setback or legitimate criticism or a personal flaw.

However I also think it's a bit much to say games "shouldn't" do it. Lots of people clearly enjoy playing single player games with create-a-character protagonists. Hell, I won't deny getting awfully attached to my 'main' Shepard. There's a market for it, a rather large market given the sales of Skyrim and its ilk.

Yeah, I'd have to agree with you. I think both options are perfectly fine, and the reason why Geralt is so nice to see is because we haven't really had a major RPG in a while with no character generation.

The biggest block that a create-your-character game has is a lack of backstory for the main character. For Geralt, he has a bunch of games and like 8 books that fully flesh out his backstory, relations with characters, with the world and locations, the history of his actions etc. etc. This makes for a really interesting character because he doesn't have to make relations with every single person he meets within the time span of the game. This same idea is used very heavily in story-heavy pen-and-paper games, such as Dungeon World or Dragon Age, where each player character has goals and ties that give them ties to the world and the other characters in the party. It means when they run into the characters estranged brother or find the mage that killed the Templar's sister, the party is way more invested in this and it gives a lot of opportunity for roleplay between the party and the NPC and within the party.

In a create-your-character game, this is not as possible. Either your character has a very fleshed out back story (which people will not like, and mean that all characters come from the same place/did the same things) and the game can use that, or you can choose from a list of backstories, but that sucks because videogames only have some much money, time and voice acting so they can't change all the dialogue apart from small references. You could just have a blank backstory, but that is then just boring. So, all of the relation building, interaction and story for this main character has to be done IN game, which causes issues. These issues, however, get less and less with sequels (if, like Mass Effect, the player character is the same) as then relationships and choices have been established from the last game. However, once again the problem of having too little time, money and voice acting arises where these backstories will only ever be lightly touched upon as they may have to record 5-10-20 different lines for each line that refers to what the player character actually did.

So, while the complaints you made were almost completely unrelated (the chosen one and bad writing are NOT caused by create-a-character) there are differences in the way stories must be told from a pre-set and a create character game. Both are okay, and I love creating my own character in games, but I also love having an interesting character that doesn't have to spend half the game showing why we should care about people.

 

[Evonisia]

I'm not trying to stir up any shit-storms here, but if it wasn't for character creation, I'd almost never get to play as a female. That's something I kind of enjoy. Even the most basic character creators - like that in Sunset Overdrive - can make a world of difference in how immersed I can get in a game.

Agreed, especially (for me personally) if said game involves magic. I guess I have a gaming thing for women and magic users being one and the same, more immersive much as I'm not fond of the word.

And Sunset Overdrive's Female Voice > Sunset Overdrive's Male Voice.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

To be honest, I don't mind either.

I play a game like Neverwinter Nights or Divinity: Original Sin or Skyrim, to have my characters live and interact in a given world with the choices that I make.

I play games like The Witcher, Uncharted and Tomb Raider to experience the story and characters the story writers and devs wanted me to see.

Some games can do the crossover pretty well. I liked how in Van Helsing II (I haven't played 1 yet) you play as Abraham Van Helsing's Son. It doesn't matter which character type you create (all male... it's a small inexpeienced games company making a surprisingly big game. They focused on a single gender (with a female ghost companion who never leaves yourside) for simplicity when creating dialogue and personality.) they all have the same personality and traits. Works well for the RPG elements... you create the character you want through the skill trees, but play as they want you to.

I thought Mass Effect did it very well too. No matter what character I played, the game and the characters would react to me in different ways... but it was still my character living and interacting with their world. The Surname Idea worked... Yes it doesn't fit with all creeds and backgrounds of the world, but it fitted nicely with the game world and just worked as it should increasing the seamless integration.

 

[JemothSkarii]

Maybe it's because I love to write and create, but I adore blank create-a-characters. It allows me to play around and make different things. I remember as a child I loved the Fallout games, and I kept making all these different characters with different builds and skills. Even started making a 'role play' guide where I'd create a bunch of builds and write out things you could do with it. Hell, even in New Vegas I broke open a mod (called NCR CF) and made a Powder Ganger character who has a grudge against NCR and Legion and tries to sabotage both without outright open hostility.

Sometimes a pre-made character works better, sometimes a create-a-character does. It depends on what kind of story or even game you want. Your opinion are that it's shit because there's no backstory and such to it. But I personally love to make my own and adapt it to the world. Then you also get games like Fallout 2, where you have a vague backstory and right from the beginning you're proclaimed 'The Chosen One'. But you're only The Chosen One because of your ancestor. If you announce it to anyone outside of the village they think you're an idiot. There's even cut content you can restore where the former Chosen One tries to kill you for taking his spot. You're just some guy from a village who wants to find a suitcase. From there you can be someone who tries to be a big hero. You can just ignore things and do your quest.

Then again with the need for voice acting, choices and such are limited. Something which has upset me with Fallout 4. Now I can feel a bit more railroaded since responses and solutions and limited from a limit on lines and responses.

 

[Lazy Kitty]

I disagree.
They don't need to refer to you by your name, they can just call you "Hey, Idiot!" or something like that. I wanna be who I want to be and do what I want to do. Not be strung along and be someone I don't want to be.
I will play the role of the character I create! No need for someone else to get in my way with their own character, because then I might as well watch a movie.

That said, if they feel like recording the dialogues multiple times for different names and once for a name they haven't recorded for, they can go right ahead, but it's not a necessity.

 

[DrownedAmmet]

The first Dragon Age and Mass Effect did it the best by actually letting you choose your backstory (Dragon Age gets extra respect because it lets you play your backstory.) That seems the simplest way to give your character some uniqueness.

The best example is Mass Effect because if I play as the "Butcher of Torfan" Shepard I act a lot differently than "Sole Survivor" Shepard.

It seems pretty easy to implement, because all you have to do is throw in a few lines later like "Hey, remember when you were a city elf and you killed that rich guy?" and chumps like me eat it up, because, yes, I did kill that rich douchebag, thanks for remembering!

 

[Hawki]

You have to admit that'd be a pretty fun spin on an RPG. The actual heroes are getting shit done elsewhere, and at best you are caught in their wake. I feel like it has been done but I can't name a game off the top of my head.

http://store.steampowered.com/app/268970/

Early access, but I remember seeing it ages ago. It fits the description of the protagonist trailing actual heroes.

 

[Something Amyss]

I fail to see how you get straight from create-a-character to "world revolves around character" as if they are the same thing. They hardly are, and there are plenty of games that have a set protagonist in which the world completely revolves around them, sometimes to a laughably overblown degree (e.g. Half-Life 2, all Legend of Zelda games, etc.) Games like The Witcher and STALKER could have accomplished what they did with create-a-character systems just like a Bethesda RPG could still be just as player-centric with a set protagonist.

Really, what you should be asking for is less player-centric writing, not the removal of a feature that aids in the role playing of, well, role-playing games, and can be used for fun in other genres.

I was basically going to say this. Self-insert and "Chosen One" stories are common in video games because of lazy writing, not because of created characters.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

pretty much; create-a-character is a holdover from pen and paper RPGs in an attempt to emulate them and facilitate role-playing...but that's impossible due to the different natures of them. The fact of the matter is that it is impossible for video games to have the amount of choice pen and paper games have due to the latter being up to the player and DM's imagination whereas the former has to limit choices and thus role-playing. In fact, "role-playing" in video games is not really role-playing; you're, at best, making a few dialogue options that are patronizingly simplistic or having to make shit up in your head to pretend like the character is more than just a blank slate who goes through no arc at all.

And that's the other thing; because games with that sort of system have to account for all sorts of choices which is why those stories tend to be very homogenized and watered-down. And it's not getting better; role-playing options have, at-best, remained static for years and there are no signs they're going to improve. This is why games where the writers remember to create a CHARACTER tend to stick better and feel like an actual narrative with a proper structure and character arcs.