Pretty much, the ones who are always complaining about the silent protagonist not having a personality just aren't creative enough to give their character one.Johnisback said:
Single-player games shouldn't have create-a-character features
- Thread starter someguy1231
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Johnisback said:
I disagree.ObserverStatus said:
The problem is that the world and characters can't react to free-form roleplaying in any way that they are not pre-programmed to do. Video games don't have any equivalent to a game master to adapt events in a meaningful way to the players non-scripted decisions.
For example, I recently tried to make a character in Skyrim who was a religious zealot. I slavishly helped out adherents to my deity of choice while systematically killing the priests of rival religions and vandalizing their temples. But that's all I could do. I could act but the game could not react. No interesting story could come about as a result. The rival religions couldn't take steps against my one-man crusade. My religion of choice couldn't cast me out as an extremist who was blackening their good name.
I also decided that my character would have a fascination with macabre things. So I filled my home with a collection of curious artifacts. I filled my shelves with books concerning demons or stories written by madmen. But, once again, that's all I could do. The game couldn't react to something that specific. My house carl couldn't quit her job because she was sick of working in a house full of creepy shit. Visitors couldn't browse my bookshelves and start asking uncomfortable questions about my character's bizarre choice in books. The locals couldn't organize a posse to run me out of town once rumours of my proclivities started to spread.
"Make your own story" is bullshit. The story is only ever going to exist in the player's head and it's always going to be a shit story because it cannot have the slightest impact on the rest of the setting or the characters therein. In which case they might as well just write the story themselves and actually make something worth a damn.
Single player games are a poor avenue for role-playing. It's just the nature of the beast. If that's what one is looking for then one would be better served by tabletop games or, if one can find the right community, by multiplayer games.
My head canon will always be the best. Will the games always reflect? No. But they don't really need to, they just need to give me the opportunity. There is plenty of ways to have fun with that, in a childishly gleeful way.Zhukov said:
You can't do that on the internet! You're supposed to double down on how your opinion is superior and go after mine for being subjective!Dynast Brass said:
(I've still had a lot of fun with the game, for the record. I just don't really love the characters)
There's variance in games where you play as a specific character or create one. For example, in Resident Evil games you get a choice of characters. With Mass Effect, you're Shepard, but you create him/her.someguy1231 said:
I think the best part of pure create-a-character is the potential to be an anyone, and actually find it weird that you suggest Skyrim was on the right track. It's pretty much what you say you hate: you're the ultimate chosen one/dragonborn, no matter what you create/do, because it's your destiny. I'm not sure about older TES titles, but Fallout is a better example of why CAC in single-player can be a great thing.
We can't have one or the other, or gaming would be boring. There's plenty of variety out there.
That's just your opinion, which I will state despite having issued my own opinions without stating such a disclaimer.Dynast Brass said:
ONe of the things that annoys me with AAA games is their increased pushed towards more homogeneity. Though indie games seem to be doing it more, too, with retro platformers or first person horror/survival games with roguelike elements and crafting. Still, it's just an annoyance at this part. I can get the games I want. Hell, sometimes I want the market-determined safe pick.Dynast Brass said:
Well, the reapers certainly would have turned out better.Bat Vader said:
I like character creation, allows for more in depth role playing, in the sence that you can give your creation his/hers own backstory.
Besides, it is a nice oppertunity to create a badass female since games still tends to gett dominated by male characters.
Besides, it is a nice oppertunity to create a badass female since games still tends to gett dominated by male characters.
Hell, Rock Band's coming back. Admittedly, without keyboards (I will NOT let that go!)....Dynast Brass said:
The whole chosen one thing is kindof an odd device in games. Because since it's a player behind the wheel, the 'chosen one' is still very, very fallible. For all the shitty writing that was in Inquisition, it did raise an interesting character development of whether or not your character believed their own hype. If there's a plan to do Dragon Age 4 that better be important because seriously, that would have some pretty major story telling repurcussions (I can't think of many plots with atheist but well intentioned/badly intentioned religious leaders. Hell, a friend of mine played it as a Dwarf who was trying to make their own above-ground crime cartel.)
The Witcher is an odd one because, despite how folks may want to see him, Geralt in Witcher 3... really isn't that important.
He's not looking for Ciri because he's the greatest hunter in the realm, it's because he's her adopted dad AND the Emperor thinks he can buy him (apparently he doesn't remember how they MET but w/e). Even then, his biggest feature is just that he's handy with a sword. Like Lambert. And Eskel. And Letho.
He's only even unique amongst them because of his hair, it's shown that every Witcher is at bare minimum a badass swordsman. Hell, Letho even struck me as being a greater badass with a tragic goal but doing incredibly ballsy plays to achieve it.
But the way the game is written, you get a pretty strong orange/blue morality and all choices fit the character you play as. It isn't a choose your own adventure story like most RPGs, it's a Witcher story with interactive features.
I mean, shit, it's like an old Final Fantasy game: This is your character, you play as them, have fun.
That isn't to say you can't have fun creating your own character but it does somewhat limit story-telling since you either give the character a concrete background and role then let them make up their own way of playing it (like Shepherd) which leads to a few similar sounding characters in the long run.
Or you give them no background and then the plot is focused on them. Which is sort of a requirement. Otherwise it'd be like playing Dynasty Warriors as one of the footsoldiers rather than Zhao Yun.
The only way I've seen it done where you create a character and you aren't the focus is the Souls games because you really aren't that important. If you wanna be the chosen one you have to EARN it by killing everyone else who's going through the exact same situation. You aren't the centre of the world, you're barely the centre of the narrative, you're one of thousands of Undead all trying to break the curse however they can. Like f*cking Oscar in the opening area. The fact you MANAGE it only means the story gets another chapter (without the original author, admittedly, BUT NEVERTHELESS)
It's odd to say you want to NOT be important in a game but it is quite impressive narratively for the character to not have a terrific deal of impact but still achieve something.
Best example would be playing an open world game like Skyrim on your own terms. Like that guy who played Khajit who refused to kill anyone and mastered illusion and restoration to do so. Dude was a total pacifist.
Man this got long winded, hope it actually makes sense...
tl;dr, character creation is fine but sometimes means the story can get weaker, best way is to make it open so you can REALLY choose your own adventure.
The Witcher is an odd one because, despite how folks may want to see him, Geralt in Witcher 3... really isn't that important.
He's not looking for Ciri because he's the greatest hunter in the realm, it's because he's her adopted dad AND the Emperor thinks he can buy him (apparently he doesn't remember how they MET but w/e). Even then, his biggest feature is just that he's handy with a sword. Like Lambert. And Eskel. And Letho.
He's only even unique amongst them because of his hair, it's shown that every Witcher is at bare minimum a badass swordsman. Hell, Letho even struck me as being a greater badass with a tragic goal but doing incredibly ballsy plays to achieve it.
But the way the game is written, you get a pretty strong orange/blue morality and all choices fit the character you play as. It isn't a choose your own adventure story like most RPGs, it's a Witcher story with interactive features.
I mean, shit, it's like an old Final Fantasy game: This is your character, you play as them, have fun.
That isn't to say you can't have fun creating your own character but it does somewhat limit story-telling since you either give the character a concrete background and role then let them make up their own way of playing it (like Shepherd) which leads to a few similar sounding characters in the long run.
Or you give them no background and then the plot is focused on them. Which is sort of a requirement. Otherwise it'd be like playing Dynasty Warriors as one of the footsoldiers rather than Zhao Yun.
The only way I've seen it done where you create a character and you aren't the focus is the Souls games because you really aren't that important. If you wanna be the chosen one you have to EARN it by killing everyone else who's going through the exact same situation. You aren't the centre of the world, you're barely the centre of the narrative, you're one of thousands of Undead all trying to break the curse however they can. Like f*cking Oscar in the opening area. The fact you MANAGE it only means the story gets another chapter (without the original author, admittedly, BUT NEVERTHELESS)
It's odd to say you want to NOT be important in a game but it is quite impressive narratively for the character to not have a terrific deal of impact but still achieve something.
Best example would be playing an open world game like Skyrim on your own terms. Like that guy who played Khajit who refused to kill anyone and mastered illusion and restoration to do so. Dude was a total pacifist.
Man this got long winded, hope it actually makes sense...
tl;dr, character creation is fine but sometimes means the story can get weaker, best way is to make it open so you can REALLY choose your own adventure.
Wow, impressed by all the replies this thread got. Keep 'em coming, always interested in what people have to say!
Admittedly, maybe using the word "shouldn't" in my title was going a bit too far. I always bristle when people speak of what games shouldn't have, whether it's sexy female characters or quicktime events or co-op modes or whatever. It's always far better to praise and celebrate what you do like, rather than shame and demonize what you don't like. After all, the video games industry is not a zero-sum game. Characters and features you don't like don't have to go away or become less common in order to "make room" for those you do like.
A big part I wrote this was because, as many here agree, I'm so sick of the "Chosen One" narrative, and it's by far the most common plot device used for customizable characters. The reason for this is obvious: it's the easiest character archetype to use because it's vague and generic, so it can easily fit all resulting character creations. That's why I think the two go hand-in-hand. I've never cared much for "Chosen One" stories, even when they were new to me, because it feels like a writer cop-out. The story's hero isn't the hero because of their courage and previous heroic deeds. They were already the "hero" before they were even born.
Also, to those saying that every game is "player-centric": when I criticize player-centricism (especially excessive amounts of it), I'm referring to characters that in other mediums would be called "Mary Sues". To get back to Geralt, although the Witcher 3's narrative largely centers around him, he doesn't hold a special or unique status in the game's world. He meets many fellow witchers who are just as badass as he is, other characters don't treat him as a messiah-like figure, and it's made very clear that the world is very much a living place independent of Geralt.
Perhaps I should've titled this thread "Single-player games shouldn't have Mary Sue protagonists".
Admittedly, maybe using the word "shouldn't" in my title was going a bit too far. I always bristle when people speak of what games shouldn't have, whether it's sexy female characters or quicktime events or co-op modes or whatever. It's always far better to praise and celebrate what you do like, rather than shame and demonize what you don't like. After all, the video games industry is not a zero-sum game. Characters and features you don't like don't have to go away or become less common in order to "make room" for those you do like.
A big part I wrote this was because, as many here agree, I'm so sick of the "Chosen One" narrative, and it's by far the most common plot device used for customizable characters. The reason for this is obvious: it's the easiest character archetype to use because it's vague and generic, so it can easily fit all resulting character creations. That's why I think the two go hand-in-hand. I've never cared much for "Chosen One" stories, even when they were new to me, because it feels like a writer cop-out. The story's hero isn't the hero because of their courage and previous heroic deeds. They were already the "hero" before they were even born.
Also, to those saying that every game is "player-centric": when I criticize player-centricism (especially excessive amounts of it), I'm referring to characters that in other mediums would be called "Mary Sues". To get back to Geralt, although the Witcher 3's narrative largely centers around him, he doesn't hold a special or unique status in the game's world. He meets many fellow witchers who are just as badass as he is, other characters don't treat him as a messiah-like figure, and it's made very clear that the world is very much a living place independent of Geralt.
Perhaps I should've titled this thread "Single-player games shouldn't have Mary Sue protagonists".
While this is an inherent problem in Mass Effect, in Dragon Age: Inquisition had room for a few different types of Inquisitor. For example; the elvhen Inquisitor would sometime be referred to as Inquisitor Lavellan, human Inquisitor as Inquisitor Trevelyan and so on. It may be only possible in DA:I due to the different predetermined backstories but it's certainly a step in the right direction.someguy1231 said:
Then I am not playing said game.
If I am stuck with first-name-basis Cuntface McGee for the rest of the game, I might as well watch a movie about him since my actions are likely to mean squat in the grand scheme of things (no, "Geralt chose" does not equal "I chose" or "my character chose".) No, I don't fucking care how well written "Geralt" is, or the "OMG grate schtory LOL!!!111", I don't have the time IRL nor give a shit about him; unless the protagonist aligns perfectly with mine.
There is a reason why I spent 30 min vs 1100 hours on The Witcher 2 and Skyrim; and the last game where I spent anywhere close to a good amount of time with a set piece protagonist is GTA 4.
If I am stuck with first-name-basis Cuntface McGee for the rest of the game, I might as well watch a movie about him since my actions are likely to mean squat in the grand scheme of things (no, "Geralt chose" does not equal "I chose" or "my character chose".) No, I don't fucking care how well written "Geralt" is, or the "OMG grate schtory LOL!!!111", I don't have the time IRL nor give a shit about him; unless the protagonist aligns perfectly with mine.
There is a reason why I spent 30 min vs 1100 hours on The Witcher 2 and Skyrim; and the last game where I spent anywhere close to a good amount of time with a set piece protagonist is GTA 4.
By your logic OP, there shouldn't be any voice acting so everyone can call you by the name you gave your character.
Cannot disagree enough with this.
I did not buy The Witcher, 1, 2 or 3. I rented 2 and played it more when it was free, and watched a lot of 3 because of constant pestering by friends... it doesn't interest me, and Geralt is the reason.
I can't stand Geralt. He's boring, dry, and a wee, scrawny man to boot. I can't get invested in that game because I have to experience it through the lens of that god-awful character. Nothing about him interests me.
Even if there were no multiplayer in Souls games, I'd still get those 10+ playthroughs. Their character creation is difficult to use and ultimately quite ugly, but it's very open, so I can make just about everyone... the hairstyles are a little limiting though. The variety of weapons means again, most of my characters are able to use something appropriate, but best of all, each playthrough plays much differently. The story is perfect for this because it's more about the world around you than the character itself, which means whatever designs you have aren't contradicted by the story at least, but there's still narrative.
So when I play those games, I'll always have a character I'm interested in, there's the fun of trying to best represent how the character fights, what they wear, etc. It even restricts my build for me. The best part the first playthrough, when every weapon pickup is a potential new character... who could use this? How would they work? It's great.
You don't get any of that in Lords of the Fallen. Instead, you get the most bland character imaginable and a terrible story to boot, and you get one playthrough, because why would I play again just to see what Harkin using daggers is like? Why would I sit through the same story, as the same bland character, just to try out that moveset?
I did not buy The Witcher, 1, 2 or 3. I rented 2 and played it more when it was free, and watched a lot of 3 because of constant pestering by friends... it doesn't interest me, and Geralt is the reason.
I can't stand Geralt. He's boring, dry, and a wee, scrawny man to boot. I can't get invested in that game because I have to experience it through the lens of that god-awful character. Nothing about him interests me.
Even if there were no multiplayer in Souls games, I'd still get those 10+ playthroughs. Their character creation is difficult to use and ultimately quite ugly, but it's very open, so I can make just about everyone... the hairstyles are a little limiting though. The variety of weapons means again, most of my characters are able to use something appropriate, but best of all, each playthrough plays much differently. The story is perfect for this because it's more about the world around you than the character itself, which means whatever designs you have aren't contradicted by the story at least, but there's still narrative.
So when I play those games, I'll always have a character I'm interested in, there's the fun of trying to best represent how the character fights, what they wear, etc. It even restricts my build for me. The best part the first playthrough, when every weapon pickup is a potential new character... who could use this? How would they work? It's great.
You don't get any of that in Lords of the Fallen. Instead, you get the most bland character imaginable and a terrible story to boot, and you get one playthrough, because why would I play again just to see what Harkin using daggers is like? Why would I sit through the same story, as the same bland character, just to try out that moveset?
Well, a character creator is only as good as your imagination I suppose.Ezekiel said:
I love a character creator, and sometimes -as in the case of the Witcher games- not having a character creator can be a deal-breaker for me! I cannot stand Geralt, I find him very unlikable, and cannot imagine spending entire games playing as him. Now it's FINE IF YOU LIKE HIM you over-reacting sods, but I don't. I don't dislike ALL pre-made characters; Mafia 2 is one of my favorite games and I very much enjoyed Mirrors Edge too, but given the choice I want to create my own.
Creating my own character is a great help in imersing me in the world; I love weaving my own story within the boundries of a game. This may have something to do with me prefering to play a female character and most pre-made characters being male, but I'm not sure. I still enjoy certain pre-made male characters so it's not a universal dislike in any case.
Creating my own character is a great help in imersing me in the world; I love weaving my own story within the boundries of a game. This may have something to do with me prefering to play a female character and most pre-made characters being male, but I'm not sure. I still enjoy certain pre-made male characters so it's not a universal dislike in any case.
Why shouldn't they. Many, many, many games have done iut quite well. In fact it really wasn't until voice acting became a thing that this became a problem. Since in earlier games it was very easy to simply have blocks of text composited on the fly for various gender, name, etc,. Voice acting.. not so much.
So yeah, character creation, still a good thing because honestly, If it weren't for that we'd only have generic white males and generic white females as protagonists in games.
So yeah, character creation, still a good thing because honestly, If it weren't for that we'd only have generic white males and generic white females as protagonists in games.