Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Picking up from an off-topic discussion here ...

Having "deep" chargen options makes the most sense in games where you, rather than the writers, are responsible for generating the story. Bethesda RPGs are the prime example.

BioWare RPGs, by contrast, are entirely predetermined. There is only one Shepherd. It does not matter whether you give Shepherd a big nose, make Shepherd a gay black lady, or choose all the Renegade dialog options. There is still only one Shepherd as far as the game is concerned.

But aside from the game's standpoint, there is also the player's standpoint. As far as the player is concerned, even this extremely superficial customizability may well make a big difference. The question is why? One answer is that non-straight, non-white, non-male players are weary of assuming straight white male avatars in video games.

Seems legit to me. Even I -- a straight white male -- am kind of sick of it. (My current character in Skyrim is a woman, for example.) So it's not hard for me to imagine that others might also want something different.

That doesn't strike me as a good enough reason by itself, however, to avoid critically acclaimed games where the protagonist is a straight white male. The issue is simple. The protagonist is not always the player's avatar. Kirsanth made the point that roleplaying isn't always about creating the role you assume. While true, the real issue here is that not every game that has RPG elements actually involves assuming a role.

The default assumption about video game playstyle in these conversations seems to be that the protagonist is an avatar for the player. So, if I'm playing a game, that character is really me -- that's my mind in that digital body. That's my digital body, for the purposes of this particular game. So shouldn't I have control over that digital body's attributes?

I don't think so. To just focus on one argument, it's not necessarily your digital body in the first place. For example, when you play a Mario game, you control a cartoonishly chubby Italian plumber as imagined by Japanese artists and marketing execs. That is not your digital body. That is Mario's digital body. Anecdotally, we don't seem to conceive of our own mind inhabiting Mario's body; rather, gameplay is more like us and Mario cooperating.

I think this is the right approach to games like LA Noire and Red Dead Redemption, as well. I am not John Marston; I am not Cole Phelps. I'm working with these guys to accomplish their goals. This is really different from Skyrim, where my goals as a player and my character's goals can be more intimately aligned.

As far as RPGs go, the BioWare games walk the line on this ... At no point am I Shepherd or Hawke. It doesn't matter if I can play a Shepherd or Hawke who superficially looks like me or agrees with me that Tali or Meredith is the most sexually appealing supporting character. Their stories are always about their goals and their choices. I'm not really assuming their goals or their decisions; I'm just helping them along their way in what strikes me as the most effective/entertaining manner.

But a lot of people feel differently about this and a big part of enjoying ME and DA2 is believing that they are creating Shepherd and Hawke by assuming their roles. That's where character generation options come in, to support that belief. They want an avatar to insert themselves into a game world; not to help someone in the game from outside of it.

In the thread where it came from, we were talking about first and third person shooters, which I feel are a lot more personally involved than a Mario game.

Especially first person shooters. You ARE the character there, you're literally being asked to be put in their body, to become them, as part of playing the game.

To me, however, the protagonist IS the avatar no matter how much people might claim otherwise. It's very easy, for example, for a guy to say "just play the game, ignore the fact that he's a dude": when the person saying it is a guy and thus to them hearing a man's heavy breathing is pretty much normal, where it is immersion-breaking for me. I'm a veteran gamer and I can deal with that kind of immersion-breaking, but that doesn't mean I want to.

The fact that Jennifer Hale was a billion times better a voice actor than Mark Meer certainly helped this in the ME series, mind you.

That magical word immersion is at issue.

A video game character need not be an avatar for you, the player. I am currently playing a female Nord in Skyrim (in FPS mode). This is not because I see myself as a lady viking trapped in a man's body. When I play that character, I am making decisions based on what I reason that my female Nord character would do; I don't simply do whatever I would do if I suddenly found myself living in Skyrim.

In that example, immersion is not fooling myself into believing that I am a viking lady who lives in Skyrim. It doesn't mean forgetting myself, either. It means, distinguishing between me, the player, and her, the character, when it comes to figuring out what she will do. So hearing my character's heavy female breathing does not break immersion.

 Manchu wrote:
So hearing my character's heavy female breathing does not break immersion.

Good for you. I have different requirements.

And yes, this issue IS enough for me to pick one game over another. I don't know why this offends people so much. But apparently this issue makes me both a racist and a misandrist or something according to PMs I've received, because I desire diversity and, if my desire for two games is equal, I'll pick the one that isn't an all-white sausage festival over the one that is.

 Melissia wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
So hearing my character's heavy female breathing does not break immersion.

Good for you. I have different requirements.

Your requirements are regularly crazy

 Melissia wrote:
I have different requirements.

So what?

I mean, you can post these "all that matters to me is me" kind of sentiments all day but that kind of stuff is better suited to your blog or facebook profile. This is a message board; i.e., a place for dialog. The topic is not what one individual prefers (who cares?) but rather how games support or don't support different kinds of playstyles.

For example, imagine a review of a Mario game that says "zero out of four stars, couldn't play female Mario." There's no way to take that seriously. On the other hand, not being able to play a female marine in an Aliens RPG (or FPS multiplayer mode) is certainly a flaw. Without focusing on these particular examples, the topic is how this difference arises. And the answer is not "because Melissia prefers X over Y."

Also Manchu, I didn't mean to be pithy or insulting. I'm just a little busy right now, preparing to go somewhere. I'll give you a mroe detailed response when I get back

Honestly I think these all represent different styles with different/strengths weaknesses and they're all valid.

You can have no character generation and attempt to keep the protagonist/player be separate such that you're watching the character's story.
You can have no character generation and attempt to make the player feel like they're in that persons shoes, trying to get them to have more personal connection to that character's story.
You can have character generation but little direct control on large events in the game, making the player feel like they're acting as an observer to the events.
You can have character generation and input on the story through ways the writers predicted, giving it a bit of a "Choose your own adventure" feel.
You can have character generation and little in the way of structured plot getting a totally user driven experience.

and so on...

None of these are better or worse than others. Though I perhaps enjoy the the last approach the least (Skyrim etc..) as when I want this kind of experience I usually go to pen-and-paper RPGs.

I think there is very much something to be said for having more variety in the kinds of characters that are offered in the first two categories, but I don't think that's the fault of the approach itself so much as the perception publishers have (accurate or inaccurate), of the market for video games.

Chongara wrote:
Honestly I think these all represent different styles with different/strengths weaknesses and they're all valid.

Agreed. The problem when it comes to critical response is refusing to acknowledge that the design intent is valid in the first place and then evaluating whether the intent succeeds and whether it helps drive the fun. BioWare's RPGs present a separate issue; it's difficult to pin down the design intent.

Chongara wrote:
I perhaps enjoy the the last approach the least (Skyrim etc..) as when I want this kind of experience I usually go to pen-and-paper RPGs.

Skyrim is not trying to simulate the PnP experience. Playing it with that expectation will depress your opinion of it.

Whenever i create a character in a game it never has the goal of creating me. I always start with a template in mind, of course this usually takes the form of a power fantasy/my ideal me but i never want actual me. I have no knowledge of military hardware/killing/spaceship piloting/magic/pickpocketing and it would break my immersion if i tried to insert myself into those roles.

My ideal character generation would be somewhere between New Vegas' stats/traits/perks, Saints Row's Customisation and Mass Effect's loose 'backgrounds'. I have always been a sucker for the 'Sole survivor' ME background as it helps further immerse me in the Shepherd character, He/She has been through something awful that i could never imagine and it creates pathos and understanding of even the most jerk-ish behaviour i (sometimes) inadvertently indulge in.

Something that is far more endemic and less relevant to the discussion is the dissonance between the character you play and the one that appears in the cutscenes/dialogue options. That is something that annoys me.

 Manchu wrote:

Chongara wrote:
Honestly I think these all represent different styles with different/strengths weaknesses and they're all valid.

Agreed. The problem when it comes to critical response is refusing to acknowledge that the design intent is valid in the first place and then evaluating whether the intent succeeds and whether it helps drive the fun. BioWare's RPGs present a separate issue; it's difficult to pin down the design intent.

Chongara wrote:
I perhaps enjoy the the last approach the least (Skyrim etc..) as when I want this kind of experience I usually go to pen-and-paper RPGs.

Skyrim is not trying to simulate the PnP experience. Playing it with that expectation will depress your opinion of it.

I'm not saying it is trying to be a pen-and-paper. However it's a large open world with not lot in the way of a set narrative. For me personally it strikes a lot of chords that PnP does for me, without offering much else I find personally compelling. This doesn't mean it can't offer something to someone else who is looking for things it delivers that PnP doesn't deliver, but that person really isn't me.

Okay, so... have a few more minutes to type before I go (yay procrastinating!)....

 Manchu wrote:
So what?

So... it means games that match fewer of my requirements are less likely to convince me to buy them than games that match more of them. Which was how the entire discussion started to begin with, wasn't it?

 Manchu wrote:
For example, imagine a review of a Mario game that says "zero out of four stars, couldn't play female Mario."

What about a review that said "Good game, I give it 4/5, but if it had a more interesting main character or let me create my own character, it'd have been 5/5"?


So many typos... hate being in a rush.

Chongara wrote:
This doesn't mean it can't offer something to someone else who is looking for things it delivers that PnP doesn't deliver

This strikes me as still pigeon-holing Skyrim as a PnP simulator, which is simply isn't.

In any case, Skyrim has what I call "deep" chargen options because who your character is can make a difference to how you experience the game. It's not so much about how NPCs react to you (that's pretty neutral, really) but more about the worldview of the character you create. You don't have to do this to play Skyrim (or even enjoy it) but I think people who don't are missing out on a big part of what Skyrim is -- i.e., player character (PC)-generated narrative.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
What about a review that said "Good game, I give it 4/5, but if it had a more interesting main character or let me create my own character, it'd have been 5/5"?

As a review of a Mario game? No, I don't think anyone could take that seriously.

The trouble is, it doesn't only matter what a given individual wants out of a game when it comes to critical appraisal. There may indeed be someone who wants to play a customizable character in a Mario game ... but so what? The same goes for wanting to play someone besides Cole Phelps in LA Noire.

On the other hand, what a given individual wants is important in some cases. For example, individual preference is in fact all that matters when it comes to what avatars are available in a FPS -- well, at least when it comes to being able to pick a female-looking digital body or a male-looking one.

I'm kind of reminded of Bleed now, actually.

In the game, the default character is a pink-haired heroine named Wryn. However, as you beat the game in varying difficulties, you unlock more characters to play as-- anything from The Rival / The Idiot (as she calls him), to a robot, to a cybernetic Wryn, Each one has a slightly different playstyle as well (or, in the case of the Robot, a drastically different one).

Would you honestly say that this game would be better off without these features? It's a simple 2d sidescroller, although I wouldn't call it "similar to Mario" aside from both of them being sidescrollers. But speaking of the Mario games, would you say that Super Mario Bros 2 would have been better if you didn't include the option to play as Peach, Luigi, or Toad, and restricted you to only Mario?

I think that giving the player more choice is better than arbitrarily restricting that choice-- choice is, in many ways, the defining feature of what makes gaming unique as an art form, and well implemented player choices always makes a game better for it.

I don't think more choices is always better -- but I also wouldn't say that restriction itself is what is important.

For me, choices are only good if they are meaningful. Unpacking that word "meaningful" is the topic here.

That's why I talked a lot about BioWare games in the OP. For some, the chargen options are less meaningful; for others they are more meaningful.

Importantly, whether they are meaningful is not only a question of to what extent Shepherd or Hawke is a stand-in for the player.

When it comes to a Mario game, the question of Mario standing in for the player is a non-starter. In Super Mario Bros 2, you didn't pick Peach to play a female. Players picked Peach because her floating power is so broken.

 Manchu wrote:
In Super Mario Bros 2, you didn't pick Peach to play a female.

Yes I did. I was young at the time and I was like "COOL! I get to beat Bowser as Toadstool! Always wanted to do that!" I didn't even know that she had a floating power at the time.

 Melissia wrote:
I'm kind of reminded of Bleed now, actually.

In the game, the default character is a pink-haired heroine named Wryn. However, as you beat the game in varying difficulties, you unlock more characters to play as-- anything from The Rival / The Idiot (as she calls him), to a robot, to a cybernetic Wryn, Each one has a slightly different playstyle as well (or, in the case of the Robot, a drastically different one).

Would you honestly say that this game would be better off without these features? It's a simple 2d sidescroller, although I wouldn't call it "similar to Mario" aside from both of them being sidescrollers. But speaking of the Mario games, would you say that Super Mario Bros 2 would have been better if you didn't include the option to play as Peach, Luigi, or Toad, and restricted you to only Mario?

I think that giving the player more choice is better than restricting that choice-- choice is, in many ways, the defining feature of what makes gaming unique as an art form, and well implemented player choices always makes a game better for it.

Choice serves purposes, chiefly it tends to give the player agency. This isn't always appropriate, while certainly it is something that can be and usually is a strength and is also unique to games, that doesn't mean it's always improves things. Player choice is just as much a "Tool in the box" as anything else in game design.

For example "Mario is Mario" builds a distinct familiar mascot across a large IP. While mario is iconic enough at this point he can stand to share the spotlight more, this wouldn't be the case if you'd constantly had him on equal footing with other characters in the IP. The result of this is an emotional attachment to the image (at least for those who like mario), and an ability to get the player to project past experiences on to current games creating a continuum of experience with Mario. It intensifies the reactions the players have and makes them feel familiar and even nostalgic.

If mario had constantly been sharing the stage on equal footing with the whole gaggle characters in the mario universe this would have given greater player choice, but wouldn't build that kind connection to a singular figure. It's something of a matter of taste if you like that sort of thing more than you do having a varied experiences but I don't think it could be fairly said it "Always Improves things" in kind of objective sense.

Character generation/customization can be a good part of a game.
There is no reason the player needs to be the one generating the character, however.
That often leads to flat and generic characters with a story that has no relation to them.

editing to add:
I think there are plenty of examples of it done well - Dragon Age was an interesting example.

Often it isn't.
Skyrim at best makes cursory nods to the generalities and ignores all details of it.
And that includes the story.

Far too many topics here, but I can touch one a few. First I think character customization is always welcome because it's just plain fun. It allows you to put your style into the game and that counts no matter if your playing an RPG or a FPS. I call it the hat principle and it simply states any game can be improved by adding a element of character customization.

You can't use character customization as a substitute for making games with female characters. You need actual female icons in order to even things out.

You can find yourself immersed someone else shoes. You don't need to look like your avatar to be pulled into them. I was able to be immersed in the alien campaign in AvP. I have nothing in common with a blood crazed alien. (you know except for the blood lust.)

My idea character creation system is actually already made. The sims 3 has a very neat system that lets you customize your look and personality. It also has a system where you can take the texture from any object in the world and put it on another. Like you can make a cloth car or a metal shirt. It's also very simple to figure out and use. Only thing wrong with it is that it's not in more games.

 kirsanth wrote:
There is no reason the player needs to be the one generating the character, however.
That often leads to flat and generic characters with a story that has no relation to them.

You just described the average gaming industry character, especially for shooters.

 Melissia wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
In Super Mario Bros 2, you didn't pick Peach to play a female.

Yes I did. I was young at the time and I was like "COOL! I get to beat Bowser as Toadstool! Always wanted to do that!" I didn't even know that she had a floating power at the time.

Fine ... but not really relevant. The option to play Peach in SMB2 is nothing like the option to play FemShep.

Chongara wrote:
If mario had constantly been sharing the stage on equal footing with the whole gaggle characters in the mario universe this would have given greater player choice, but wouldn't build that kind connection to a singular figure.

I don't care about Mario. He's not some kind of deep character who has an interesting personality, he's just a random mute who goes and saves the princess. So... I don't have any kind of "connection" to him. He's just sort of... there.

 Melissia wrote:

 kirsanth wrote:
There is no reason the player needs to be the one generating the character, however.
That often leads to flat and generic characters with a story that has no relation to them.

You just described the average gaming industry character, especially for shooters.

Which are so well known for their characters. . . .

nomotog wrote:
I call it the hat principle and it simply states any game can be improved by adding a element of character customization.

I don't think that's a very helpful principle, depending on what you mean by character customization. How would it apply to Super Mario Brothers, Tomb Raider, or God of War, for example?

We are talking about character customization right?

Being able to visually customize the look of a character you cannot ever see is irrelevant.

 Manchu wrote:
Fine ... but not really relevant.

It's entirely relevant.

 Manchu wrote:
The option to play Peach in SMB2 is nothing like the option to play FemShep.

I'll grant you that they're not the exact same, but there are distinct similarities behind the impetus that drives me to pick both of them.

 kirsanth wrote:
Character generation/customization can be a good part of a game.
There is no reason the player needs to be the one generating the character, however.
That often leads to flat and generic characters with a story that has no relation to them.

It depends I think. I have seen bland charters with no customization, but also characters with a lot of character and a lot of customization. It's more about how well the writers write.

 kirsanth wrote:

I think there are plenty of examples of it done well - Dragon Age was an interesting example.

Often it isn't.
Skyrim at best makes cursory nods to the generalities and ignores all details of it.
And that includes the story.

Another example of approaching Skyrim incorrectly ... playing it like it's ME or DA. In Skyrim, you provide the story. Part of that is you making your character. Gamewise, that involves picking gender, species, looks, hairdo, skills, etc. But more important is what the player provides outside of the mechanical options -- like worldview/personality/motivation.

 kirsanth wrote:
Being able to visually customize the look of a character you cannot ever see is irrelevant.

No it's not. That character represents me, and I am playing as them, ergo, I want to make them my own, and I want to present them to the other players as my own.

I stated that it is a character that cannot be seen.

You stated you wanted to make it look better.

Yea. . . .