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.
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.
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.
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.
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"?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Again, your own idiosyncratic experience is not at issue. Please stop trying to make these discussions about yourself rather than the games. In SMB2, you can pick different characters because they have different playstyles. ManShep and FemShep do not have different playstyles.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kirsanth wrote: We are talking about character customization right?
Being able to visually customize the look of a character you cannot ever see is irrelevant.
What about a character that other players can see?
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.
For you maybe. However if we're talking the merits of game design choices, we can't confine the discussion to our own personal experiences. Mario I could take or leave, but he is iconic and important to some people. For some people that little dude with a bushy mustache and bright red overalls is all but synonymous with their childhood. Maybe you never took to him, and that's fine you're looking for something else. For others having this image with a really distinct design and consistent behavior (stays quite, jumps on things, cartoonish pantomimes things, etc...) forged a real connection to something. These experiences wouldn't have existed without the tight focus on these elements throughout multiple games. Even as they explore new mechanics, art styles, genres, secondary characters etc...
Manchu wrote: Another example of approaching Skyrim incorrectly ...
One second. That is not at all what I stated.
The GAMEPLAY makes up for the lack of the game itself never taking into account your actual customization, barring very limited instances.
I meant that it is a game that you can make the character matter - and it makes it better. But does the customization actually do anything in game? No.
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?
It refers to visual customization, so you let the player pick a hat for them to wear and that makes the game better. I explained the why in the part of the quote you cut out.
kirsanth wrote: I meant that it is a game that you can make the character matter - and it makes it better.
But does the customization actually do anything in game?
No.
Aside from racial abilities, that's quite correct. Skyrim is really frustrating to a lot of people because they expect the game mechanics to recognize their subjective choices about character appearance -- and you're right, the game mechanics ignore that. It's important to the player and Skyrim gives the players the freedom to base gameplay on whatever they chose, including their subjective chargen choices.
nomotog wrote: It refers to visual customization, so you give them a hat to wear and that makes the game better. I explained the why in the part of the quote you cut out.
How is giving the character a hat meaningful customizability? How does the on/off choice to wear a hat or not allow me to "insert my style" into a game? And even assuming it does, why assume that I want to assert "my style" into the game? I don't think I necessarily have a better probability of liking something that I design over something a designer designs. (Think of it this way: I can't draw very well. Why would I like my own drawings over a professional artists?) The hat principle strikes me as hot air.
Because you were making the point and it has been refuted. Or are you going to argue that your entire point, itself, wasn't relevant?
Manchu wrote: Again, your own idiosyncratic experience
Is not at all idiosyncratic, unless you define the term as "being different than mine".
Manchu wrote: Please stop trying to make these discussions about yourself
The original issue at hand was whether or not I should have chosen to spend my money on one game rather htan the other, and how my decision apparently offended people.
Manchu wrote: In SMB2, you can pick different characters because they have different playstyles.
This is not always true. In several cases, there's minimal difference in playstyle and they're mostly just aesthetics.
Manchu wrote: ManShep and FemShep do not have different playstyles.
I don't see that as relevant to this discussion. There is no need to differentiate two characters by giving them dramatically different playstyles in order to justify both being in the game.
Chongara wrote: These experiences wouldn't have existed without the tight focus on these elements throughout multiple games.
I suppose I see your point in that-- it's similar to the devs throwing away character customization in the latest Deus Ex game destroyed a set of experiences that I found desirable.
And yet, with the overwhelming majority of games having virtually identical generic mute white guy protagonists, I find it a hard sell to have people argue that there should be more of them, or that I should force myself to settle for less and spend my hard earned money on a game that doesn't have all the features I want.
kirsanth wrote: But does it inherently make the game itself better?
nomotog wrote: It refers to visual customization, so you give them a hat to wear and that makes the game better. I explained the why in the part of the quote you cut out.
How is giving the character a hat meaningful customizability? How does the on/off choice to wear a hat or not allow me to "insert my style" into a game? And even assuming it does, why assume that I want to assert "my style" into the game? I don't think I necessarily have a better probability of liking something that I design over something a designer designs. (Think of it this way: I can't draw very well. Why would I like my own drawings over a professional artists?) The hat principle strikes me as hot air.
Melissia wrote: And yet, with the overwhelming majority of games having virtually identical generic mute white guy protagonists, I find it a hard sell to have people argue that there should be more of them.
As I understand it, the issue in the XCom thread was not that there should be more generic white guy protagonists; the argument was that having a generic white guy protagonist is not by itself a good reason to dismiss a game. (Again, what you personally do with your own money is not at issue.)
Manchu wrote: So does being able to choose Man- or FemShep in ME make it a better game or a more popular one?
Oh, it can be both!
When I state that it is not needed, that does not mean it cannot be done. Sometimes it makes games infinitely better.
That is an example of a game that actually cares about your customization AND is done well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: As I understand it, the issue in the XCom thread was not that there should be more generic white guy protagonists; the argument was that having a generic white guy protagonist is not by itself a good reason to dismiss a game. (Again, what you personally do with your own money is not at issue.)
Chongara wrote: These experiences wouldn't have existed without the tight focus on these elements throughout multiple games.
I suppose I see your point in that-- it's similar to the devs throwing away character customization in the latest Deus Ex game destroyed a set of experiences that I found desirable.
And yet, with the overwhelming majority of games having virtually identical generic mute white guy protagonists, I find it a hard sell to have people argue that there should be more of them.
Who game developers and publishers decide to push as their characters is a problem. However that's a wholly separate issue from if there are design merits to having to specific entity being used as the player's interface for the world.
The problem is everywhere. You can find some examples (not enough) of varied characters, when you venture outside AAA shooters. I'd also be willing to agree that some of these portrayals are also problematic in their own right, but at least they exist and they certainly aren't universally bad.
I just I don't think there is at all legitimate line of reasoning from "AAA Shooters in particular have a problem with silent mcbaldhead millitary dude" and "Choice [character customization] always makes a game better" with no consideration to the design and style of the game in question.
Aaand one more post before I go take this half hour drive in the Texas heat with a barely functioning air conditioner.
Chongara wrote: I just I don't think there is at all legitimate line of reasoning from "AAA Shooters in particular have a problem with silent mcbaldhead millitary dude" and "Choice [character customization] always makes a game better" with no consideration to the design and style of the game in question.
Sure there is.
Because AAA games have generic, bland, forgettable characters, it would make the game more enjoyable to create my own character and narrative for them. Hell, this is the entire reason that AAA games have mute protagonists to begin with-- it's a stand-in for the player. The character IS the player and dialogue would supposedly get in the way of this, so they include as little as possible from the player character.
Therefor, given that the character is going to be a mute protagonist lacking in personality as a vague, silent representation of the player anyway, what exactly is the goddamned problem with me wanting to be able to make the character my own by customizing them a bit? It would take nothing away from the game and it'd help me enjoy the game more. And anyone that didn't want to go through it would just pick the default character and be done with it, and thus it would not negatively effect anyone else's playthrough either. Ergo, it would be a better game.
Having that generic white male protagonist (from now on called the Toyoda) doesn't trash a game all by itself a game on it's own, but I think we are at a level of overflow that it hurts.
Manchu wrote: (Again, what you personally do with your own money is not at issue.)
Apparently, it is, considering this entire discussion started because of it.
This is really where you go wrong. I promise people are not interested in coming to TX and making you spend your money as they see fit. You are really not the center of the universe. This topic came up because you're essentially saying games like LA Noire and Red Dead Redemption are bad because you can't play a woman.
To give a counter example, I don't like Halo. But I don't take every opportunity to post that I find Halo to be generic and boring. Who the feth cares whether I think Halo is generic and boring? The question is, do I have arguments that go beyond my personal preferences? Is Halo generic and boring apart from whether or not I enjoy it?
You're making the claim that white male protagonists make games worse. If this only applies to you, then who cares? Post it on your blog. The people who care will find it there. The rest of us are here sorting through criticisms that have a wider application than one random person's likes and dislikes.
Melissia wrote: Aaand one more post before I go take this half hour drive in the Texas heat with a barely functioning air conditioner.
Chongara wrote: I just I don't think there is at all legitimate line of reasoning from "AAA Shooters in particular have a problem with silent mcbaldhead millitary dude" and "Choice [character customization] always makes a game better" with no consideration to the design and style of the game in question.
Sure there is.
Because AAA games have generic, bland, forgettable characters, it would make the game more enjoyable to create my own character and narrative for them. Hell, this is the entire reason that AAA games have mute protagonists to begin with-- it's a stand-in for the player character. The character IS the player and dialogue would supposedly
Therefor, given that the character is going to be a mute protagonist lacking in personality anyway, what exactly is the goddamned problem with me wanting to be able to make the character my own by customizing them a bit? It would take nothing away from the game and it'd help me enjoy the game more.
Because there are things other than AAA Shooters and you've been making a blanket statement about all games ever. Similarly you could easily (ingrained practices in the industry aside), conceivably have even have a AAA Shooter with a specific but non "Shooty McBaldWhiteGuy" protagonist.
If you've been intending to make the statement. "Specifically with regards to AAA shooters, in general they could be improved by having customizable characters over only ShootMcGeneric Dude" that's probably a bit more of a fair statement, and probably mostly (if not entirely), true. However if that is the case you've not been expressing it clearly before this point.
Manchu wrote: (Again, what you personally do with your own money is not at issue.)
Apparently, it is, considering this entire discussion started because of it.
This is really where you go wrong. I promise people are not interested in coming to TX and making you spend your money as they see fit. You are really not the center of the universe. This topic came up because you're essentially saying games like LA Noire and Red Dead Redemption are bad because you can't play a woman.
I didn't say that. I said they would be better if they did allow me to play as a woman.
Saying a game is not as good as it could/should have been if it had a specific feature it lacked is not the same as saying it was bad. I never said LA Noire was bad, for example, only that I lost interest in it. I know many people that argued that Space Marine would have been better if you could choose your chapter in the main storyline. Very few of them were saying that Space Marine was bad. I also know that people wished Space Marine had co-op for its single player campaign, and that it would have been better if it had it-- but they still aren't necessarily saying it was bad because it didn't have it.
Chongara wrote: Similarly you could easily (ingrained practices in the industry aside), conceivably have even have a AAA Shooter with a specific but non "Shooty McBaldWhiteGuy" protagonist.
The chances of that are about as slim as the chances of Obama winning an election by running as a Republican.
Chongara wrote: Similarly you could easily (ingrained practices in the industry aside), conceivably have even have a AAA Shooter with a specific but non "Shooty McBaldWhiteGuy" protagonist.
The chances of that are about as slim as the chances of Obama winning an election by running as a Republican.
That's fine, but it doesn't affect the point I'm making about game design. Perhaps an example would better serve us:
In what ways would Thomas was Alone have been improved by adding character customization?
This is a really interesting discussion, for the most part.
To me, and I just wanted to echo a bit of what Manchu has said already, the importance of deep chargen is only important if my decisions are going to affect the game in some meaningful way. Generally this will only apply to more recent RPGs, where my decision to help the mayor or beat him to death with a hammer is going to have lasting repercussions.
Other than that I don't generally think about the avatar in a game, and I don't think have a wide variety of selection of avatars necessarily makes a game better in and of itself. I tend to focus more on innovation and playability. I would go further to say that I would consider character generation for its own sake can be a waste of time and actually detract from my enjoyment of a game.
Imo character gen is really down to the player of the game as to whether its meaningful or not.
For me it is almost a must for any RPG as it allows me to make the character of the game tell their story, not Biowares story or Bethesdas, its my story. The devs just give you the toys and tell you to go play essentially.
In a game like Black Ops 2 however the character gen is wasted. Woohoo! I can make my character just look different, yea thats not going to help much.
I mean compare Black Ops 2 to Blacklight: Retribution, 2 games of exactly the same genre. The Character gen is almost essential to BL:R as it has a direct affect on gameplay(I'm not talking about the weapons either) the armour you choose will influence how you play the game, and give more choice IE looks over stats.
It all entirely game/player based. 9/10 times character gen can make the game better but if added just for the sake of it then its wasted time/resources imo.
Melissia wrote: I know many people that argued that Space Marine would have been better if you could choose your chapter in the main storyline. Very few of them were saying that Space Marine was bad.
That's an excellent distinction.
What if, however, the protagonist being an UM was actually important to the story? Being able to choose your chapter would not make the game better in that case.
Hmm thats an interesting point, I would have preferred a different chapter other than the UM in Space Marine. It wouldn't have done anything to the story just made the character a bit more bearable(I say a bit as I'm a Chaos lover at heart lol)
Monster Rain wrote: In that game changing the chapter would be tantamount to simply changing the paint job in the armor without a significant impact on the game.
Is a color swap on a standard avatar really the type of chargen we are discussing?
Depends on the Chapter, and how much value they placed on the Codex Astartes. I can't see a Space Wolf worrying about an unconventional method of initiating a planetary assault.
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.
I don't know, that sounds a lot like me, digital or otherwise. Now if you'll excuse there are more turtles hiding in the plumbing I have to get at.
I don't know what your problem with the Mass Effect series is Manchu but it's not a good example of when character generation is meaningless and Skyrim a great example. I think who you play in Skyrim is a lot more pointless than who you play in ME. You're Mario example is more spot on. Being able to customize his moustache would not automatically made the game better.
Monster Rain wrote: In that game changing the chapter would be tantamount to simply changing the paint job in the armor without a significant impact on the game.
Is a color swap on a standard avatar really the type of chargen we are discussing?
Depends on the Chapter, and how much value they placed on the Codex Astartes. I can't see a Space Wolf worrying about an unconventional method of initiating a planetary assault.
That, and the UM are the "good guys". The more grimdark chapters would change the story signicantly as far as how they went about their business.
It all entirely game/player based. 9/10 times character gen can make the game better but if added just for the sake of it then its wasted time/resources imo.
I'd have to agree with this. Character generation is always something I'll enjoy but I'm not going to consider games worse off for not including it.
As an example, I liked Halo 3's armor customization as it was. It was a fun option. When reach further built upon that system by adding a more in depth builder with expanded options I liked it even more but Halo 2 was just fine as far as I was concerned.
Character generation is like cheese. You can throw it onto just about anything and improve the meal, but it's not absolutely necessary to put cheese on every sandwich
Chongara wrote: In what ways would Thomas was Alone have been improved by adding character customization?
That's a good question.
I can think of numerous ways in which TWA could be improved through character customization. In the case of that game, however, it had numerous playable characters who were all very well developed and likable in their own ways, and whom, despite being a collection of squares and rectangles, I actually cared about.
So it would take a lot more effort to utilize character customization / creation in TWA which would essentially amount to support for user-generated content and the ability to make unique "characters" that played with the physics in different ways than the default characters did. In effect, it doesn't really "need" it, but it would be interesting to see it implemented well.
Thomas Was Alone, however, is an exceptional game in terms of storytelling, rather well above the norm.
Melissia wrote: You don't put cheese on all your sandwiches?
HERETIC!
Chongara wrote: In what ways would Thomas was Alone have been improved by adding character customization?
That's a good question.
I can think of numerous ways in which TWA could be improved through character customization. In the case of that game, however, it had numerous playable characters who were all very well developed and likable in their own ways, and whom, despite being a collection of squares and rectangles, I actually cared about.
So it would take a lot more effort to utilize character customization / creation in TWA which would essentially amount to support for user-generated content and the ability to make unique "characters" that played with the physics in different ways than the default characters did. In effect, it doesn't really "need" it, but it would be interesting to see it implemented well.
Thomas Was Alone, however, is an exceptional game in terms of storytelling, rather well above the norm.
Well certainly if it would have resulted in numerous improvements, you should be able to illuminate some of them.
-What are some specific customization options you'd make available.
-What do each of those options do to enhance the game.
-What (if anything), is lost from the original experience assuming the player proceeds with a custom character rather than "Thomas". I'm particularly interested in the interaction between character customization and the tight storytelling and characterization, with emphasis on the way the character's personalities and views are complimented by their mechanics. Also of importance is stylistic integrity, thematic impact especially in regards to the last section of the game, and the accessibility of game play. If none of this is lost or diminished, why?
-If there anything is lost from the original experience, how do the enhancement outweigh those losses and result in an overall superior experience.
For me, character customisation tends to be a fairly big/important element in games that actually feature strong RPG elements. This is not because I somehow desire to insert myself into the game (which I'd actually find a bit bland - it's far more entertaining to create a character that actually builds upon and utilises all the background details of the world the game is set in), but because I like to regard such experiences like a movie or a story of which I am the "director", so to say. Needless to say, we all have different opinions and personal preferences about how we like our movies and books, and gravitate towards different ideas for how we would picture a hero, or what kind of protagonist we'd like to see. If you had the ability to alter a movie character's visual appearance, would you truly refrain from using it? Every time?
This is not to say that predefined character appearances automatically make a game or a movie gak, but in my opinion it certainly is something which plays a role in my overall assessment of the game, added to by how much I like said game's other aspects, and how much I like/dislike whatever the developers have chosen to "force" on me in terms of the character I am supposed to play. If the designers manage to craft a protagonist who I think looks awesome by default, I won't miss customisation options. But these options being available makes it so much less likely for me to give a game a lower score because I think the hero looks boring. Plus, I like to be creative and toy around with customisation options. Creating cool characters is almost(?) a form of art unto itself.
I find people tend to like a lot of cheese because cheese has salt, and a lot of folks don't season their food properly.
Same goes for bacon in a lot of cases. Don't get me wrong, cheese and bacon are great, but they are way overused. There's lots of sandwiches you probably wouldn't put cheese on. Most bound salads(egg, tuna, chicken) would fit into that category I should think.
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.
Manchu I'm pretty sure you haven't even played skyrim if that is your opinion.
In skyrim there is only one way to play the game and that is as Yes-man (aka dragonborn) and if you try to be something like merchant or a bandit the game simply seizes to funtion.
In mount&blade you can be a merchant and your actions affect the economy of caladria. I can be a bandit and people will hate me. I can be a mighty warlord and even kings shall flee before me.
If I don't go tell the jarl about helgen nothing will happen.
You don't have to tell the jarl about Helgen. You can run off and do whatever for forever (do what I did. KILL EVERYONE ). You can run around and do the side story lines, or just explore around and do whatever. Now I'm no champion of Skyrim being the most open game ever made but its not that narrow.
Monster Rain wrote: I find people tend to like a lot of cheese because cheese has salt, and a lot of folks don't season their food properly.
Same goes for bacon in a lot of cases. Don't get me wrong, cheese and bacon are great, but they are way overused. There's lots of sandwiches you probably wouldn't put cheese on. Most bound salads(egg, tuna, chicken) would fit into that category I should think.
Whoa, whoa, whoa there mister. There's no such thing as too much bacon! Now that is Heresy!!!
Being dragonborn in Skyrim is synonymous with having a character. It doesn't obligate you to do anything in the game. You can ignore all those quests. You can even ignore the dragonborn powers -- just like, if you wanted, you never need use a bow.
Manchu wrote: Being dragonborn in Skyrim is synonymous with having a character. It doesn't obligate you to do anything in the game. You can ignore all those quests. You can even ignore the dragonborn powers -- just like, if you wanted, you never need use a bow.
But in order to beat the game don't you have to do the dragon born quests? I own the game but I haven't beat it so I don't know anything about the end game.
It's very sandboxy. There's a main quest, sure, if you want it. But what you do before, during, or after it, or whether you do it at all, is up to you. It doesn't force you to do it.
It's like Minecraft in that regard. When you kill the Ender Dragon, have you "beaten" Minecraft?
Monster Rain wrote: I find people tend to like a lot of cheese because cheese has salt, and a lot of folks don't season their food properly.
Same goes for bacon in a lot of cases. Don't get me wrong, cheese and bacon are great, but they are way overused. There's lots of sandwiches you probably wouldn't put cheese on. Most bound salads(egg, tuna, chicken) would fit into that category I should think.
Whoa, whoa, whoa there mister. There's no such thing as too much bacon! Now that is Heresy!!!
I'd rather eat something that uses bacon as an essential component that elevates the most sublime ingredient on earth than something that simply has bacon slapped on top of it because "bacon is good".
Manchu wrote: Being dragonborn in Skyrim is synonymous with having a character. It doesn't obligate you to do anything in the game. You can ignore all those quests. You can even ignore the dragonborn powers -- just like, if you wanted, you never need use a bow.
But in order to beat the game don't you have to do the dragon born quests? I own the game but I haven't beat it so I don't know anything about the end game.
Honestly I never bothered beating skyrim. Simply terrorizing the vampires and witches around the countryside was enough for me. I followed that ghost horse around for ages.
Manchu wrote: Melissia is correct; completing the main quest in Skyrim is not "beating" the game.
I think it can be in a way. For these open-ended sandboxy games they end when a player wants it to end, it's subjective in a way. If player completed the main quest and though "I think I've done what I want, this a good note to end my character's story on" for them game has been beaten as much any game where the main quest is all there is.
I liked Planescape Torment for its ability to allow you to impose your morality and have your decisions influence your character ocer the course of the game.
Of course, generation is standard DnD stuff, but how your character developed is what always got be going back for more.
I'm not sure what the question or issue is in this topic we seem to be going all over the place. So speaking generally if you give me char gen fine I'll have fun with it. If you don't I can step aside for "artistic integrity" as it were and direct this pre made character. Now often these premade characters are white, straight, baldish males and rarely do their whiteness, straightness, baldishness, or maleness have anything to do with the gameplay or story. So it would be nice to see more diversity.
Why? Because being inclusive is nice? Seeing your own race, religion, creed etc represented in your favorite mediums makes you feel good. It sounds simple and silly but it's like a kindergarten lesson on diversity. Not sure what to say if someone doesn't get that or why they would want to deny that to people for the sake of intellectual gymnastics on a video game forum. It they do disagree I would hope they respond without verbose condescending essays....
Also I don't begrudge a game for not having customization but I rarely find fault with the inclusion of it in other games. If you get the option then great!
Manchu wrote: Melissia is correct; completing the main quest in Skyrim is not "beating" the game.
I think it can be in a way. For these open-ended sandboxy games they end when a player wants it to end, it's subjective in a way. If player completed the main quest and though "I think I've done what I want, this a good note to end my character's story on" for them game has been beaten as much any game where the main quest is all there is.
You could also say once you get one faction to conquer Skyrim it's over, as well. Or when you've become the Archmage. Or any other number of things.
Each major quest of the game could be "the end" to you.
To me it depends on the type of game. As already well covered, there's a world of difference between first person games - where I like to know what my appearance is for my imagination's sake even if I can't see me at all - to third-person over the shoulder, to the complete disconnect that side-scroller platformers and fighters have (where the character is most decidedly nothing to do with me and therefore not a concern). For me driving games have that same disconnect because while you might catch an odd glimpse of the driver, the person inside is of little consequence to the game - there's no difference in performance or how the game plays, or even sound - in essence, you are the car instead.
Basically, the more connected I feel to the character being played, the more I want those customisation options. BUT not having certain options doesn't make me less likely to play the game or enjoy it any less... I was perfectly happy playing Mirror's Edge, for instance, and became engrossed in Faith's character even though her hands, feet, and voice are all the wrong gender for me.
Because of this I have difficulty understanding anyone who simply can't bear playing a character in the wrong gender (and that goes to guys that can't play as females too), though I do get that the "young white muscly male" thing is overdone. That's more to do with a lack of imagination in the character than a lack of choices. If you make the character interesting enough, the lack of choices doesn't matter. Commander Shepard is a good example of how this works. We may be able to mess with gender, hair, eye colour etc. but you're still a badass Commander and you can't be a farmer or a mechanic. Did any of us care? No, because Shepard is a BADASS.
Mhm, I'm not sure if Shep would be a good example, given that you can customise the character's visual appearance and, to a degree, even his or her background.
On the other hand, I still agree with the general statement. For example, I disliked the inability to "adjust" Adam Jensen in Deus Ex - something which was still possible in the preceding game - but at least the character looked somewhat unique, and the brilliant story allowed me to overcome what I still see as a flaw. Similarly, although my first Mass Effect playthrough (1+2) involved a custom Shep, I re-played it as a trilogy using BioWare's default female Shepard, simply because I've grown used to the redhead they've been showing in the promo material, and I like that character's design enough that I now have a fitting poster in my room and a statuette on my office desk.
Sometimes, a character design simply hits just the right spot, or is possibly even better than what I would've come up with (example: brown-skinned Nilin in Remember Me), and thus doesn't make me wish for being able to change something. Unfortunately, a lot of times this just isn't the case. In this, character customisation acts as both an "insurance" to allow me to like a character's visual appearance, as well as a feature in allowing me to modify a part of the game's experience towards my own personal preferences and "make it my own".
Lynata wrote: For me, character customisation tends to be a fairly big/important element in games that actually feature strong RPG elements. This is not because I somehow desire to insert myself into the game (which I'd actually find a bit bland - it's far more entertaining to create a character that actually builds upon and utilises all the background details of the world the game is set in), but because I like to regard such experiences like a movie or a story of which I am the "director", so to say. Needless to say, we all have different opinions and personal preferences about how we like our movies and books, and gravitate towards different ideas for how we would picture a hero, or what kind of protagonist we'd like to see. If you had the ability to alter a movie character's visual appearance, would you truly refrain from using it? Every time?
This is not to say that predefined character appearances automatically make a game or a movie gak, but in my opinion it certainly is something which plays a role in my overall assessment of the game, added to by how much I like said game's other aspects, and how much I like/dislike whatever the developers have chosen to "force" on me in terms of the character I am supposed to play. If the designers manage to craft a protagonist who I think looks awesome by default, I won't miss customisation options. But these options being available makes it so much less likely for me to give a game a lower score because I think the hero looks boring. Plus, I like to be creative and toy around with customisation options. Creating cool characters is almost(?) a form of art unto itself.
That make any sense?
That's a much more eloquent version of my position
Melissia wrote: It's very sandboxy. There's a main quest, sure, if you want it. But what you do before, during, or after it, or whether you do it at all, is up to you. It doesn't force you to do it.
It's like Minecraft in that regard. When you kill the Ender Dragon, have you "beaten" Minecraft?
Skyrim is onthing like minecraft. In in minecraft pursuing elder dragon is purely your choise but in skyrim the second you exit tutorial dungeon you are marked with the quest forever in your todo list. Like in gta 4 the game allows you to dick around indefinitely but in the end of the day game tells what you should and shouldn't do.
illuknisaa wrote: In in minecraft pursuing elder dragon is purely your choise but in skyrim the second you exit tutorial dungeon you are marked with the quest forever in your todo list..
So?
The game's saying "well, here's our storyline quest, you can do it any time you want, or not." That's not forcing you to do anything. So what if it's in your quest list? Doesn't mean you have to do it to progress in the game.
Melissia wrote: It's very sandboxy. There's a main quest, sure, if you want it. But what you do before, during, or after it, or whether you do it at all, is up to you. It doesn't force you to do it.
It's like Minecraft in that regard. When you kill the Ender Dragon, have you "beaten" Minecraft?
Skyrim is onthing like minecraft. In in minecraft pursuing elder dragon is purely your choise but in skyrim the second you exit tutorial dungeon you are marked with the quest forever in your todo list. Like in gta 4 the game allows you to dick around indefinitely but in the end of the day game tells what you should and shouldn't do.
It's entirely up to the player if they want to pursue said quest of just leave it there forever.
I've never actually completed the main storyline and I've done the three main archeotype characters (stealth, fighter, magic) at least once to level 40+
What I will say to this debate is that Skyrim essentially has an ending, there is an end to the sidequests and exploration of the world. In skyrim there is only a finite number of things to do and see.
Minecraft has infinite procedural generation, and sandbox capacity, so technically you could just not do the ender dragon.
Though there are, on the other hand, a lot of cases where it would be possible, but where "conventional wisdom" simply suggests it shouldn't be.
I remember how, for example, the developers of War of the Roses said they would not have female characters because that wouldn't be realistic - completely disregarding historical accounts that women did, in fact, take to the field in that time period. And why? I do not believe in malicious/sexist intent on part of the developers, but that the past couple centuries have successfully written out the role of women in public perception. You just don't get told about stuff like this in school, you have to delve into very specific research on your own time. Movies and video games all play a role in propagating this falsified and manipulated history by affecting the gamer's perception, suggesting that "this is how it was" by repeating what they heard elsewhere. It's probably a miracle that people are at least somewhat aware that there were women fighting in WW2's Red Army, giving all the games and movies that simply ignore it. Napoleonic Wars, medieval times, feudal Japan, WW1, however? 99% of the people you'd ask would tell you that the only place you'd find a woman was the kitchen.
This affects me, too. In Mount & Blade Napoleonic Wars, I have on principle only played male soldiers as it's just part of the setting, right? I did not even consider the alternative, even though the game offers it.
Only now, as I actually check up on the subject to make sure my post isn't total bollocks, do I find out that there was stuff like Wellington having a female captain in his forces.
It's certainly a tricky subject in that one should differ between "hardcoded rules" of a society, and what would merely be a perceived average. In the example of L.A. Noire, a female cop would be an anachronistic oddity - yet if the game would be focused on a criminal career, a woman should pose no problem at all, and the same goes for non-white men.
At the same time, for better or worse there is a certain appeal to established archetypes, and the classic white man with suit, hat and thompson is what springs to mind first when thinking about the setting. Ultimately, it all depends on how the player character is introduced, and where we all draw our own lines as to what we'd deem "fitting". This individual perception fuels much of the debate in this thread.
Doctadeth wrote: Minecraft has infinite procedural generation, and sandbox capacity, so technically you could just not do the ender dragon.
It also has no story, no voice acting, no cutscenes, and no characters; it is computer Legos for the console generation; it has no end because it doesn't really have a beginning.
Oh, I hadn't seen this thread! I've not bought games because they didn't offer female characters before. A perspective for you:
Manchu wrote: 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 thing is, there are already way more games in the world than I can play. I'll play and enjoy games where you can only play a guy, but there are so many cool games where you can play a female character that I don't feel obliged to, and I'm totally comfortable buying a game because it has a cool female protagonist (Melissia mentioned Bleed earlier in the thread - that was one fitting that description) or skipping a game because I can't play a female character in it (Killing Floor, for example).
Often, the ones I care the most in are where you play a generic self-insert sort of character. I don't feel obliged to support a multiplayer game that acts like women don't play video games, like Killing Floor. I enjoyed Mount & Blade, but felt comfortable skipping that new one (Fire & Sword, or something? It escapes me right now) when I found out you couldn't play a female character. Being able to play a female character does make me more likely to play a game - Mount & Blade, for example, was one I bought because being able to play an awesome female character is great. Bladestorm was another. Tenchu Z!!! (Yes, I know I'm the only person in the world who enjoyed that game) With so many great games to play with female protagonists, I don't mind writing off ones that don't.
I wouldn't say all games are improved by character customisation, though. Often it's superfluous. I think the biggest thing is that game developers shouldn't feel obliged to fill in the blanks when it's unnecessary. For some reason I'm thinking of Quantum Conundrum and how the player character is explicitly male even though there's no real reason for it.
And yeah, being able to pick Peach in Super Mario Bros 2 "just picking a character for overpowered float"? Maybe if you're a guy.
Being able to have choice in relation to a character is, generally speaking, good.
Unless the story is based around a particular character.
Such generalities ignore the actual issue - choosing a character is part of a game. Sometimes however, that choice is - and should be - in the hands of devs. Tomb Raider would be crap with user generated characters.
Journey would be less than worthless.
The choice in character assumes that a game panders to it.
The last time I cared was when they were talking about adding one and the discussion was about whether she'd be a paid DLC character or not. At the time, all the playable characters were male, though I understand there was a female NPC merchant with sexually suggestive lines - I don't really consider that a plus.
Looks like she's still paid DLC. Female player tax in effect!
LordofHats wrote: Ah. Gotcha XD I've only played the game since long after its release so for me she was always there lol
It looked like a fun game! But there are lots of fun games and I'm okay with giving some a pass based on what might appear to some to be a pretty arbitrary criterion.
I actually did not enjoy Killing Floor. I think I'd have liked it when it came out cause I was way into Unreal back then, but I got it in like, 2011. Such a dated game by then XD
kirsanth wrote:Sometimes however, that choice is - and should be - in the hands of devs. Tomb Raider would be crap with user generated characters.
I don't know. Why?
As I said, if I find a character interesting, I won't miss customisation options. And often, a good story crafted around said character, may be sufficient for me to overlook it. I named Deus Ex HR as well as ME3's default Femshep earlier as one example for this.
But why exactly would Deus Ex, or Tomb Raider, have been "crap" if you could customise the character? In the case of Tomb Raider, is this just because we are already used to Lara? Because that's a pretty lame reason. How exactly would it have influenced the story if Lara would have had red, blonde, or black hair? A different haircut? Or if it had been *gasp* a guy?
Lynata wrote: It's certainly a tricky subject in that one should differ between "hardcoded rules" of a society, and what would merely be a perceived average. In the example of L.A. Noire, a female cop would be an anachronistic oddity - yet if the game would be focused on a criminal career, a woman should pose no problem at all, and the same goes for non-white men.
At the same time, for better or worse there is a certain appeal to established archetypes, and the classic white man with suit, hat and thompson is what springs to mind first when thinking about the setting. Ultimately, it all depends on how the player character is introduced, and where we all draw our own lines as to what we'd deem "fitting". This individual perception fuels much of the debate in this thread.
A female copn that is also an ex-Marine who fought the Japanese in WWII? Yeah. I don't think "anachronistic" would really cover that.
But that's really my point. Characters aren’t always interchangeable, as I said, but more importantly a lot of the “why can’t it be a women?” arguments tend to ignore the very story the game is telling. You couldn’t have Bookerina Dewitt in Bioshock Infinite as it wouldn’t work. Maxine Payne? No. These characters are central to the story being told and central to the settings that you play within. Removing them from the game would be like removing Dinosaurs from Jurassic Park and replacing them with giant angry Koalas – it would destroy what the whole product is trying to get across.
It comes back to what Manchu said about whether a story’s gender serves the story or is independent of the story. I’m playing through Mass Effect for the first time right now, and I’m playing as FemShep. But it doesn’t really matter. All that changes in Mass Effect is whether people say “he” or “she”, “him” or “her”. Nothing significant changes (other than Jennifer Hale’s voice acting, which is always preferred – same reason my Jaden Korr from Jedi Academy was a woman, even if canonically Jaden Korr is a man).
Going back to L.A. Noire, Colleen Phelps over Cole Phelps simply wouldn’t make sense, and I think it’s wrong to criticise a game like that for not including a female option when said option would make no sense in context with the story being told or the universe being portrayed.
Race is even less important IMO. I played through Prototype 2 and at no point did I say “Wow! I’m playing as a black guy!”. Ditto goes for The Walking Dead which I’m playing through at the moment (when taking breaks from Mass Effect).
Lynata wrote: But why exactly would Deus Ex, or Tomb Raider, have been "crap" if you could customise the character? In the case of Tomb Raider, is this just because we are already used to Lara? Because that's a pretty lame reason. How exactly would it have influenced the story if Lara would have had red, blonde, or black hair? A different haircut? Or if it had been *gasp* a guy?
You're talking about two different things.
Hair colour and whatnot - that's superficial and aesthetic. It has no real impact on gameplay. Taking Lara Croft out of a Tomb Raider game though, well... would you take Indiana Jones out of an Indiana Jones movie? The games are about that character. Removing that character leaves the game without a focus and it ceases to be a Tomb Raider game.
I think that here we are touching upon the subject of what exactly defines a character, as in personality, abilities, quirks.
You say that any modification of Lara Croft's appearance would "remove the character". Can you elaborate on this? What role do factors such as hair colour/type or gender play in how a person must behave? I think this is pigeonholing, influenced by what I believe to be a subconscious belief in the validity of stereotypes.
You ask if I would take Indiana Jones out of an Indiana Jones movie, then argueing that "the games are about that character", yet at the same time you claim that "it doesn't really matter" for Mass Effect. Is Mass Effect not about Commander Shepard?
On the flipside, how would it really affect Lara Croft if she had short, black hair, or if she had been a young guy? What role do such details play for character development and central story points?
In this, you still owe this thread some more explanation on your statements. You argued with anachronisms, which I already agreed to. But the rest? What exactly would be wrong with a "Maxina Payne"? Mind you, I have not played this game, but from what I can see it plays in a modern setting, so there shouldn't be any reason why the character's visual appearance needs to be confined to such a specific shape.
Where I would agree is that certain specific appearances (and I am not talking about gender alone, but details such as muscles, hairstyle, clothing) may seem more fitting or interesting to a game's theme and thus make it sell better ... but then again, this too is very subjective, as we all have obvious differences in taste. Customisation would provide a way out and offer each of us what they'd like to see.
Lynata wrote: You say that any modification of Lara Croft's appearance would "remove the character". Can you elaborate on this?
I didn't say that at all.
What I said was:
"Hair colour and whatnot - that's superficial and aesthetic. It has no real impact on game play."
Lynata wrote: Is Mass Effect not about Commander Shepard?
Not really. Mass Effect (and keep in mind I've not played ME2 or ME3, so my experiences are based upon the first game alone) is about a guy called Saren trying to bring back the Reapers. That they chose Commander Sheppard to deal with the issue is irrelevant. It could have been any Spectre, or they could have chosen a different person to be the first human Spectre. Shepard is a reactionary participant in a story. The story drives the character, rather than the character driving the story.
This is what Manchu is getting at when he talks about the Skyrim protagonist driving the story. There are story missions that advance the plot, but don't have to be central to game play or you can even ignore them completely if you so wish. It's your character, choosing his or her own destiny. ME doesn't work that way.
H.B.M.C. wrote: But that's really my point. Characters aren’t always interchangeable, as I said, but more importantly a lot of the “why can’t it be a women?” arguments tend to ignore the very story the game is telling. You couldn’t have Bookerina Dewitt in Bioshock Infinite as it wouldn’t work. Maxine Payne? No. These characters are central to the story being told and central to the settings that you play within. Removing them from the game would be like removing Dinosaurs from Jurassic Park and replacing them with giant angry Koalas – it would destroy what the whole product is trying to get across.
Occasionally you'll run into a game where the main character couldn't be anyone else. Booker DeWitt, though? I think that's a really bad example because he could easily be a woman and tell the same story. A couple of the details might differ, but as a whole the story would work fine.
The La Noire guy? Maybe.
It comes back to what Manchu said about whether a story’s gender serves the story or is independent of the story. I’m playing through Mass Effect for the first time right now, and I’m playing as FemShep. But it doesn’t really matter. All that changes in Mass Effect is whether people say “he” or “she”, “him” or “her”. Nothing significant changes (other than Jennifer Hale’s voice acting, which is always preferred – same reason my Jaden Korr from Jedi Academy was a woman, even if canonically Jaden Korr is a man).
Going back to L.A. Noire, Colleen Phelps over Cole Phelps simply wouldn’t make sense, and I think it’s wrong to criticise a game like that for not including a female option when said option would make no sense in context with the story being told or the universe being portrayed.
Okay, but the original context of this discussion was the Xcom game. In the video, it's a bunch of dudes running around. Melissia said something about "games that aren't stupid" and a bunch of guys got offended.
Is the new Xcom game going to be a deep exploration of masculinity in 1950s America? Developer interviews have said it won't, and that there won't be any female soldiers in the game at all. At the end of the day, the game developers decided several things:
- to set their game in a time period that was much less equal than today;
- that the world being invaded by aliens and chest-high walls was more plausible than having female soldiers in the Xcom project
- that the desire of female players to be represented in the game was unimportant (note here that research shows women overwhelmingly choose to play female characters in games when presented with the option, as opposed to men, who will play either)
These are all conscious decisions that shaped the game and shaped it to the detriment of some people. If someone sees a game has been made to her detriment then she's well within her rights to call it stupid.
Because it is stupid.
(And good lord, what an off-hand comment to spawn pages of discussion and an entire thread.)
Ex-Marine just back from WWII and joining the LAPD? Not going to be a woman.
Men and women are not (always) interchangeable, and one cannot (and should not) ignore story, setting and context for the sake of token diversity.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Okay, but the original context of this discussion was the Xcom game. In the video, it's a bunch of dudes running around. Melissia said something about "games that aren't stupid" and a bunch of guys got offended.
Is the new Xcom game going to be a deep exploration of masculinity in 1950s America?
At this point I'm not sure if we're talking about X-Com, the turn-based top-down tactical game, or X-Com: Betrayal Edition, the first person (or maybe now third person) cover-based shooter. I'm guessing the latter yes? In which case, it's set in the 50's. Female "agents" in those sorts of field positions weren't really a thing yet. Yes, they existed - they existed as far back as the 20's IIRC (correct me there if I'm wrong) - but generally speaking in the 50's was still a time where the overwhelming majority of "generic field agents" were male. Female support staff? Of course, and certainly in a post WWII world. But just because it sticks to its period doesn't make it sexist (outside of any general sexism native to the period which is neither the developers' fault nor are they perpetuating it), or even a "deep exploration of masculinity in 1950's America".
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: - to set their game in a time period that was much less equal than today;
And really that should be the end of the discussion. They've given a context - 1950's America. A lot of groups that have rights today didn't have rights then, and thus wouldn't be represented in the game. Getting annoyed that they're sticking to an actual history setting is petty.
Ex-Marine just back from WWII and joining the LAPD? Not going to be a woman.
I don't have an opinion on LA Noire's choice of characters because I haven't played it. That's why I said "maybe."
H.B.M.C. wrote: Men and women are not (always) interchangeable, and one cannot (and should not) ignore story, setting and context for the sake of token diversity.
At the same time, stories do not get delivered to writers on basalt tablets from God. Writing is work, and writing is prejudiced by the person writing it and their culture. Including a variety of characters isn't compromising some holy and pure story.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Okay, but the original context of this discussion was the Xcom game. In the video, it's a bunch of dudes running around. Melissia said something about "games that aren't stupid" and a bunch of guys got offended.
Is the new Xcom game going to be a deep exploration of masculinity in 1950s America?
At this point I'm not sure if we're talking about X-Com, the turn-based top-down tactical game, or X-Com: Betrayal Edition, the first person (or maybe now third person) cover-based shooter. I'm guessing the latter yes? In which case, it's set in the 50's. Female "agents" in those sorts of field positions weren't really a thing yet. Yes, they existed - they existed as far back as the 20's IIRC (correct me there if I'm wrong) - but generally speaking in the 50's was still a time where the overwhelming majority of "generic field agents" were male. Female support staff? Of course, and certainly in a post WWII world. But just because it sticks to its period doesn't make it sexist (outside of any general sexism native to the period which is neither the developers' fault nor are they perpetuating it), or even a "deep exploration of masculinity in 1950's America".
What seems to have sparked this discussion was a woman calling a game stupid, offhand, because it was another in a long line of games with a generic white male protagonist designed to appeal to an assumed white male player, and part of a game series that has historically represented people who aren't white males. When you take a game series known for a certain positive attribute and then remove that positive attribute, people are sometimes upset, especially when they see it as being in service of pandering to an assumed lowest common denominator (and especially when they aren't actually included in that lowest common denominator at all). Personally, I feel it's entirely reasonable to glibly call it stupid as a result.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: - to set their game in a time period that was much less equal than today;
And really that should be the end of the discussion. They've given a context - 1950's America. A lot of groups that have rights today didn't have rights then, and thus wouldn't be represented in the game. Getting annoyed that they're sticking to an actual history setting is petty.
Failing to represent people isn't a neutral action. Taking a series that's known for its diversity and whitemalewashing it, even though it's a fantasy game, is not a neutral action. It's excluding people. And for heaven's sake, a woman in an elite covert agency is past the line when you have aliens running around? Really?
Melissia's suggestion of a character editor was actually really reasonable as the least disruptive option. It lets you have your sexismtopia fantasyland if you want to while letting people who don't want that still enjoy the game.
In its absence, she's well within her rights to, in an offhand comment, call the game stupid. Even if it offends a whole bunch of guys.
illuknisaa wrote: In in minecraft pursuing elder dragon is purely your choise but in skyrim the second you exit tutorial dungeon you are marked with the quest forever in your todo list..
So?
The game's saying "well, here's our storyline quest, you can do it any time you want, or not." That's not forcing you to do anything. So what if it's in your quest list? Doesn't mean you have to do it to progress in the game.
No game's saying that "END IS NIGH! and only you can save us" and your character has to comply. I can't say "zog off" to guestgiver or even say that "I have things to take care of first". My character has no opinion one way or the other aka my character is the same faceless drone that everyone else has. Nothing happens unless I do something unlike in M&B where Nords wage constant war, swadia gets attacked by everybody etc.
I can be a furry stormcloak running in imperial armor in front of ulfric and nobody gives a gak.
The last time I cared was when they were talking about adding one and the discussion was about whether she'd be a paid DLC character or not. At the time, all the playable characters were male, though I understand there was a female NPC merchant with sexually suggestive lines - I don't really consider that a plus.
Looks like she's still paid DLC. Female player tax in effect!
The steampunk mrs. Foster is free although you need an achievement to unlock her.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: In its absence, she's well within her rights to, in an offhand comment, call the game stupid. Even if it offends a whole bunch of guys.
The issue is not about rights.
Calling a game stupid should be able to be backed. Saying it is not to someone's taste or preference, not so much.
Backing an objective statement with subjective flame inducing statements is just . . . stupid.
It sounded like you did, given that customisation involves "hair colour and whatnot", and then going on about "removing characters out of a game".
So, to clarify, for you it is really just a gender thing? Customisation of hairstyle, clothes and other such aspects are okay, but changing a persons gender is not? Because era-based limitations aside, I'd say that how a person chooses to dress says much more about them than what gender they belong to. And given how well Ania Solo replicates Han's style and evokes the same kind of humour in Star Wars, I just don't see why a female Indiana Jones should be impossible. Or a male Lara.
H.B.M.C. wrote:Not really. Mass Effect (and keep in mind I've not played ME2 or ME3, so my experiences are based upon the first game alone) is about a guy called Saren trying to bring back the Reapers.
Yes really. The Mass Effect trilogy (and I think you should catch up on 2 and 3) is about Commander Shepard saving the galaxy. Saren trying to bring back the Reapers is an aspect of this story in the exact same way as Major Toht trying to turn the Nazi army invincible in Raiders of the Lost Ark.
"After this, Commander Shepard’s story is complete.”
- Michael Gamble on ME3
H.B.M.C. wrote:That they chose Commander Sheppard to deal with the issue is irrelevant. It could have been any Spectre, or they could have chosen a different person to be the first human Spectre. Shepard is a reactionary participant in a story. The story drives the character, rather than the character driving the story.
Here's where I can't follow your logic. I could take the exact same argument and turn it around for Lara Croft or Max Payne, yet for some reason for you it's totally different there.
If ME1-3 wouldn't have had Shepard but Spectre X, then the trilogy would not have magically shifted focus and stopped being about the protagonist's journey. It would have simply become the story of Spectre X. The game experience is defined not by Saren and his plot, but by the personal challenges, the sacrifices, and the friendships that the protagonist faces in pursuit of the plot.
Star Wars wasn't about the Emperor and his Death Star either, it was about Luke, Han and Leia.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: What seems to have sparked this discussion was a woman calling a game stupid, offhand, because it was another in a long line of games with a generic white male protagonist designed to appeal to an assumed white male player, and part of a game series that has historically represented people who aren't white males. When you take a game series known for a certain positive attribute and then remove that positive attribute, people are sometimes upset, especially when they see it as being in service of pandering to an assumed lowest common denominator (and especially when they aren't actually included in that lowest common denominator at all). Personally, I feel it's entirely reasonable to glibly call it stupid as a result.
That's not entirely true, far from it actually.
The thing that people actually responded to was not the lack of diversity in X-COM but the attitude towards games like Red Dead Redemption and L.A.Noire simply by them having a white male protagonist.
You seem to focus on the X-COM thing but that is not what fuelled this discussion.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: At the same time, stories do not get delivered to writers on basalt tablets from God.
Cool. Never said they did.
When you're ready to respond to the points I'm making rather than resorting to hyperbole and whatever... that... was, lemme know. Until then, I'm walking away.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lynata wrote: It sounded like you did, given that customisation involves "hair colour and whatnot", and then going on about "removing characters out of a game"
Aesthetic choices aren't that important to the story. Mass Effect doesn't change if you have blonde or red hair, or a big nose or a small nose, for instance. The only difference these sorts of choices is what you see throughout the game. They won’t change who the character is and I doubt there’s any place where such decisions (eg. how far apart your eyes are or your style of eyebrows) is going to impact the story or the choices you’re given.
Lynata wrote: So, to clarify, for you it is really just a gender thing? Customisation of hairstyle, clothes and other such aspects are okay, but changing a persons gender is not? Because era-based limitations aside, I'd say that how a person chooses to dress says much more about them than what gender they belong to. And given how well Ania Solo replicates Han's style and evokes the same kind of humour in Star Wars, I just don't see why a female Indiana Jones should be impossible. Or a male Lara.
No.
It’s a character, story and context thing.
The character Cole Phelps is a straight white male because he’s a Marine just back from the war in the pacific and is a detective in late 40’s LA. A half-Latino, half-black lesbian wouldn’t make any sense in the context of that game.
The character of Booker Dewitt is a man for reasons I can only explain by spoiling the end of the game, which I won’t do outside of a spoiler tag and only if requested.
As I’ve said multiple times now men and women are not always interchangeable. You can’t take any story and just swap the gender of the main character. Context and story are important, and changing the gender for no other reason than to change the gender.
But also note that from the beginning I’ve been saying that they’re not always interchangeable. Sometimes they are. Mass Effect (and Jedi Academy) is a good example, because it doesn’t matter who or what Sheppard is. All the change of gender does is influence the pronouns people use. Sheppard’s gender is irrelevant to the context of Mass Effect, irrelevant to the story of Mass Effect and irrelevant to even the character of Sheppard. Outside of the superficial “romance options” (which can be completely ignored), the gender of Sheppard plays no role in the story. The only important aspect of what Sheppard is is his/her species (that s/he’s human).
Lynata wrote: "After this, Commander Shepard’s story is complete.”
- Michael Gamble on ME3
Is this the same guy who said that ME3 wouldn’t have an A, B or C ending?
Lynata wrote: Here's where I can't follow your logic. I could take the exact same argument and turn it around for Lara Croft or Max Payne, yet for some reason for you it's totally different there.
Again it comes back to context. The latest Tomb Raider game is an origin story for Lara Croft, explaining how she went from a simple researcher/archaeologist/whatever the hell her qualifications are into the hard-core survivalist and endangered species-hunting murder-machine of later games. Changing her into Larry Croft just makes the game generic, and what I’m saying is that Lara Croft is central to her story and her game – she can’t just be swapped out for Random Dude #448. Lara Croft’s games are about her, not about the world she inhabits. Same goes for Max Payne.
ME isn’t about Sheppard. It’s about what Sheppard (and friends) do about the situation they’re in.
Lynata wrote: Star Wars wasn't about the Emperor and his Death Star either, it was about Luke, Han and Leia.
This is the exactly point I’m making. You can’t just remove these characters and replace them with other people and expect it to work. Luke, Han and Leia aren’t just place-holders and things that can be swapped out at will. ME’s very structure however means that it doesn’t matter who or what Sheppard is (as long as s/he’s human). That’s the difference.
H.B.M.C. wrote:No. It’s a character, story and context thing. The character Cole Phelps is a straight white male because he’s a Marine just back from the war in the pacific and is a detective in late 40’s LA. A half-Latino, half-black lesbian wouldn’t make any sense in the context of that game.
The character of Booker Dewitt is a man for reasons I can only explain by spoiling the end of the game, which I won’t do outside of a spoiler tag and only if requested.
I have already mentioned era-based concerns as the only valid argument against customisation of race and gender twice, and I don't know the second example. Please feel free to explain via spoiler tags, however, if you think it adds something to the debate!
H.B.M.C. wrote:As I’ve said multiple times now men and women are not always interchangeable. You can’t take any story and just swap the gender of the main character. Context and story are important, and changing the gender for no other reason than to change the gender.
And as I have said multiple times, I am not talking about "any" story - I am talking about those where era-based cultural norms do not prevent the possibility.
H.B.M.C. wrote:Is this the same guy who said that ME3 wouldn’t have an A, B or C ending?
Maybe? And I still think it didn't, too.
“The story of Commander Shepard is definitely over."
- Chris Priestley
"We knew it was going to be the end of Shepard’s story, and in our minds and imaginations, the characters are still going to be together, the characters that Shepard had brought together (assuming you’d kept them alive), and maybe it didn’t come across enough, that those characters still had a future, that they had a hope going forward.”
- Mac Walters
This was also one of their reasons for why the next ME game won't be called Mass Effect 4, by the way. Similar to how they've recently dropped the 3 for Dragon Age: Inquisition to reinforce the disconnect between the story arcs.
I don't really agree with these decisions (and will continue to call ME4 = ME4), but then again it could be argued that it is sadly necessary, given the nerdrage about Dragon Age 2 not featuring "their" Warden.
Amongst the fans of the franchise, you are certainly the exception when you don't see it as "Shepard's story". Google the term and you see what I mean.
H.B.M.C. wrote:Changing her into Larry Croft just makes the game generic, and what I’m saying is that Lara Croft is central to her story and her game – she can’t just be swapped out for Random Dude #448. Lara Croft’s games are about her, not about the world she inhabits. Same goes for Max Payne.
ME isn’t about Sheppard. It’s about what Sheppard (and friends) do about the situation they’re in.
That still doesn't make any sense to me. Explain to me why Lara's gender is "central" to her story and her game? Why would the game suddenly become generic - the obvious issue of the prevalence of white male characters aside? Why isn't Max Payne generic in spite of being a dude?
Because story - and save for era-based limitations the character's gender does not dictate it. Mass Effect is the obvious example. In spite of your denial, the game is about Shepard and his/her immediate companions (which is obviously BioWare's strong point), and I can't believe that you don't see the parallels between "a game about what Shepard (and friends) do about the situation they're in" and "an origin story for Lara Croft explaining how she went from a simple researcher/archaeologist/whatever the hell her qualifications are into the hard-core survivalist and endangered species-hunting murder-machine of later games".
In your own words, both Mass Effect as well as Tomb Raider are about the protagonist overcoming a series of obstacles, yet somehow it's completely different? In Mass Effect, the romances "can be completely ignored", but in other games they suddenly become an important aspect of the character?
I have a feeling you'd argue differently if ME would offer no customisation, too.
H.B.M.C. wrote:This is the exactly point I’m making. You can’t just remove these characters and replace them with other people and expect it to work.
You are still working under the assumption that a genderswap would make them "other people". I do not agree with such stereotyping.
ME isn’t about Sheppard. It’s about what Sheppard (and friends) do about the situation they’re in.
Lynata wrote: Star Wars wasn't about the Emperor and his Death Star either, it was about Luke, Han and Leia.
This is the exactly point I’m making. You can’t just remove these characters and replace them with other people and expect it to work. Luke, Han and Leia aren’t just place-holders and things that can be swapped out at will. ME’s very structure however means that it doesn’t matter who or what Sheppard is (as long as s/he’s human). That’s the difference.
I'm going to agree with H.B.M.C on this, as someone that has never played Mass Effect 1 and 2, but has played through ME3 twice, once as a canonical Shep as I could get (Male, Soldier, etc...) and once pretty much the complete opposite, FemShep born off earth, w/e the Psychic type class was (with the cool powers), etc... My playthroughs had nothing to do with the person I was controlling, but what actions I took during the game. I could have been given no choices on character generation and I would have been fine. In fact that was one of the points I jokingly made when the frakas about the endings were made. I told my friends who had played ME1 and ME2, and said, I'm playing the game the Developers wanted me to play.
MAJOR BIOSHOCK INFINITE SPOILERS BELOW FOR LYNATA YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!
Spoiler:
The girl you rescue in Bioshock Infinite is Booker's daughter. Yes it could have worked with her mother, but you rarely see alcoholic mothers with gambling problems due to the atrocities they committed at the Wounded Knee Massacre
Alfndrate wrote:My playthroughs had nothing to do with the person I was controlling, but what actions I took during the game. I could have been given no choices on character generation and I would have been fine.
In other words, you actually agree with me that it's all about the story.
Or rather, we seem to have a break between what we consider part of the story here. To continue the discussion, this may have to be addressed.
MAJOR MASS EFFECT SPOILERS BELOW FOR ALFNDRATE YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! :b
Spoiler:
Are incidents such as carrying the cipher, meeting the various aliens, (potentially) falling in love with them and (potentially) see them die, uncovering the truth about the Reapers, defeating Saren and Sovereign, dying and being resurrected, allying with an old enemy, rescueing your friends from the Collectors, being arrested, reinstated, getting a war trauma, seeking out old friends, preparing for the final battle and making the ultimate sacrifice not "Shepard's story" in the very same way that all that happens to Lara Croft in the new game is part of hers?
I just don't get where you people are seeing the difference, and Mass Effect could have easily been a movie just like Star Wars.
tl;dr: What really defines a character in your eyes?
Alfndrate wrote:MAJOR BIOSHOCK INFINITE SPOILERS BELOW FOR LYNATA YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!
Spoiler:
The girl you rescue in Bioshock Infinite is Booker's daughter. Yes it could have worked with her mother, but you rarely see alcoholic mothers with gambling problems due to the atrocities they committed at the Wounded Knee Massacre
So, just yet another example of era-based limitations which I have already addressed.
Alfndrate wrote:My playthroughs had nothing to do with the person I was controlling, but what actions I took during the game. I could have been given no choices on character generation and I would have been fine.
In other words, you actually agree with me that it's all about the story.
Or rather, we seem to have a break between what we consider part of the story here. To continue the discussion, this may have to be addressed.
But it's not about the character's interactions in the story. The Mass Effect series could have easily just have been, "Over the shoulder Halo Ripoff!" and people would have played the game for the actions between point A and Point Z because there was no character to generate. People were angry at the ending of Mass Effect 3 because of the "customization" that was provided to them in the first two games, and that their actions ultimately had NO EFFECT on what you did at the end of the game. I played pure paragon (or as close as I could) and I was still given the evil action. So why did it matter what I chose in every event preceding the final cutscene? Does the character I created at the beginning of the game effect the outcome of the game beyond what skin is showing on the screen? Absolutely not.
MAJOR MASS EFFECT SPOILERS BELOW FOR ALFNDRATE YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! :b
Spoiler:
Are incidents such as carrying the cipher, meeting the various aliens, (potentially) falling in love with them and (potentially) see them die, uncovering the truth about the Reapers, defeating Saren and Sovereign, dying and being resurrected, allying with an old enemy, rescueing your friends from the Collectors, being arrested, reinstated, getting a war trauma, seeking out old friends, preparing for the final battle and making the ultimate sacrifice not "Shepard's story" in the very same way that all that happens to Lara Croft in the new game is part of hers?
It's only "Shepard's story" because we have the protagonist's name associated with the story. If I could change my character's surname so that it was Commander John Poopypants, would the actions in the spoiler not be "Poopypant's story"? What I'm saying is that games like Mass Effect 3 give you the idea of character generation being an option, but at the end of the day, you could put anyone into his role. Could Masterchief complete Commander Shepard's story? I believe he could, because the person you control is a medium for the story to be told, it isn't the story. The actions of the "character" (skin on the screen) are the medium in which you as the player experience the story. The only way for character generation to have any impact is if you have "background" pieces that make certain parts of the story harder than others. If Space Born Shepard had issues with the gravity of planets, making the escape from the weird bug planet harder, then you would have a different story because a flaw of his is impacting the game.
As to the idea of Lara Croft being the only person for Tomb Raider, I would say the same thing as above. You can take Lara Croft out of the adventure replace it with say... Nathan Drake, and the story would be plausible, and I doubt that it would have any negative impact on the story of the game.
I think the reason why people are arguing things like Lara Croft is always Tomb Raider, and Indiana Jones is always doing what he does because we've been given the story and these characters that have become icons in and of themselves that "transcend" their stories. But even then we're given something like Luke, Leia, and Han, we actually can take them out of Star Wars and drop their backgrounds into another world. If you're even remotely familiar with Eragon, it's basically Star Wars with dragons. But then we're not dealing with the nuances the actors (voice and otherwise) give to the characters, we're getting into character archetypes and delving into the work of Joseph Campbell and his book, The Power of Myth
Ultimately we're dealing with a medium very similar to reading a book. The players that play video games imprint parts of themselves into their characters actions much like a reader imprints parts of themselves into characters that they're reading about. As a personal example, when I'm imagining characters in my head as I'm reading in the scenes, they're all left handed. Why? Because I'm left handed and trying to imagine someone being right handed when drawing a sword, or raising a gun (oddly enough I shoot right handed, but I still imagine them as lefties ) just seems foreign to me. When I make a choice in a game like Mass Effect 3, I treat it like how I would do it, "What might I say in this situation?" etc... But ultimately the story doesn't change because of the choices I make at the beginning of the game.
Sometimes a story defines a character. Sometimes a character defines a story.
Sometimes it is neither.
It depends on what the writer/developer intended.
Generally speaking, D&D/MMO/etc. games revolve around a group of characters who are participating in a story deliberately written to NOT take into concern what the actual party make up is. These are PERFECT for insane levels of customization.
Other times the story itself requires certain agents or actors to participate, random example would be InFamous. In those instances the customization layers inhibit the actual story. Sure, you may not like the main character (or his appearance, or gender, or whatever), but the game is about that character anyway. Cole MacGrath is who the story teller is trying to tell a story about. I have all kinds of extra skins but they make the game, story, and character worse.
I may not play a game where the bad guys are cats, but that has no bearing on the quality of the game in question. (Damn you Kilrathi!!)
Alfndrate wrote:But it's not about the character's interactions in the story. The Mass Effect series could have easily just have been, "Over the shoulder Halo Ripoff!" and people would have played the game for the actions between point A and Point Z because there was no character to generate. People were angry at the ending of Mass Effect 3 because of the "customization" that was provided to them in the first two games, and that their actions ultimately had NO EFFECT on what you did at the end of the game. I played pure paragon (or as close as I could) and I was still given the evil action. So why did it matter what I chose in every event preceding the final cutscene?
See, in my opinion, a story is a story regardless of whether it is 100% or just 80% dictated by the developer. Does it really make Shepard's experiences less of a story just because there are multiple ways to approach a situation? No. It just means that your character's story is somewhat unique as opposed to being identical to what everyone else was playing.
This is even touched upon in ME3 itself, in whose final scene you find out that what you've experienced with your Shep ...
Spoiler:
... is just a story told by an old man voiced by Buzz Aldrin, passing on a legend to his grandchild.
"Did it really happen that way?"
"Perhaps."
On a sidenote, I also do not agree with all the negativity about the ending. Of course I can't talk for anyone elses game, but my choices certainly mattered ... for my story.
Alfndrate wrote:Does the character I created at the beginning of the game effect the outcome of the game beyond what skin is showing on the screen? Absolutely not.
But that is exactly what I'm argueing! Does Lara's gender effect the outcome of the game beyond what skin is showing on the screen?
Alfndrate wrote:It's only "Shepard's story" because we have the protagonist's name associated with the story. If I could change my character's surname so that it was Commander John Poopypants, would the actions in the spoiler not be "Poopypant's story"?
Yes. And if Lara Croft would be Lars Croft, wouldn't it be Lars' story? What effect does this have upon the story itself that it is suddenly supposed to become "generic"?
Alfndrate wrote:As to the idea of Lara Croft being the only person for Tomb Raider, I would say the same thing as above. You can take Lara Croft out of the adventure replace it with say... Nathan Drake, and the story would be plausible, and I doubt that it would have any negative impact on the story of the game.
I think the reason why people are arguing things like Lara Croft is always Tomb Raider, and Indiana Jones is always doing what he does because we've been given the story and these characters that have become icons in and of themselves that "transcend" their stories.
... why are we argueing?
Alfndrate wrote:Ultimately we're dealing with a medium very similar to reading a book. [...] When I make a choice in a game like Mass Effect 3, I treat it like how I would do it, "What might I say in this situation?" etc... But ultimately the story doesn't change because of the choices I make at the beginning of the game.
I partially agree, however I'd point out that some games do allow us to affect the story somehow. Of course you'll always have the main plot which remains largely stagnant, but once again taking Mass Effect as an example, there is a tremendous amount of smaller things you can manipulate, ranging from the romance options to how (or if!) you resolve crew conflicts all the way to minor details such as you killing Elnora or letting her live, or even replacing Samara with her evil twin. All of these things are undoubtedly part of the larger story, with Shepard being the center through which we experience it. This is why everyone's Shepard is a little different. That we add our own choices and interpretations to the character does not affect the validity of it as a story.
And who knows, maybe some day in the future we will actually have RPGs that do not have a "hardcoded" main plot at all, but feature an AI capable of constantly re-working the environment to conform to any and all choices we would be able to make in the respective situation. That this is not the case already is merely a case of technical limitations, not theoretical impossibility.
I've been arguing, albeit terribly , that the actions at the beginning of the game don't actually have an impact on the outcome of the game. If character generation allowed me to dictate how my character would react in certain situations, then character generation has a meaning beyond the choices we make in the game, which technically don't have anything to do with the character generation options at the beginning of the game. I could make my Shepard the most fugly looking mofo ever, scars everywhere, angry eyes, aged and battered face, etc... but then once I'm in the game, he could be the nicest mofo in the galaxy.
Mhmm, that's not really the point I've been making - but rather, that everything we experience is Shep's story, regardless of how we customise him/her. And that likewise any possible customisation on Lara Croft or Max Payne would change little to nothing on those stories as well.
I fully agree with you that we've simply come to see these characters, as well as Indy etc., in a very specific and established appearance and thus cannot cope with the thought that they could look otherwise. It's the same for me. But just because it's too late now doesn't change that they could well have looked different back then without us throwing a fit - or experiencing a different story.
And although this is somewhat off-topic, I still think that any action and decision you take does affect the story, in whatever small way. This has nothing to do with character customisation, however - although there are games where it is different, see Dragon Age: Origins, which is pretty much Mass Effect with swords.
On a sidenote, though, even in Mass Effect you are occasionally confronted with the background you have chosen in customisation, such as during an interview you give or when my Shep was confronted by a former member of the gang she belonged to on Earth before enlisting with the Alliance military.
Lynata wrote: Mhmm, that's not really the point I've been making - but rather, that everything we experience is Shep's story, regardless of how we customise him/her. And that likewise any possible customisation on Lara Croft or Max Payne would change little to nothing on those stories as well.
I fully agree with you that we've simply come to see these characters, as well as Indy etc., in a very specific and established appearance and thus cannot cope with the thought that they could look otherwise. It's the same for me. But just because it's too late now doesn't change that they could well have looked different back then without us throwing a fit - or experiencing a different story.
And although this is somewhat off-topic, I still think that any action and decision you take does affect the story, in whatever small way. This has nothing to do with character customisation, however - although there are games where it is different, see Dragon Age: Origins, which is pretty much Mass Effect with swords.
On a sidenote, though, even in Mass Effect you are occasionally confronted with the background you have chosen in customisation, such as during an interview you give or when my Shep was confronted by a former member of the gang she belonged to on Earth before enlisting with the Alliance military.
In DA: Origins though, the actions I made at character generation affected pieces of my life. Like if I was a Human Noble Rogue, my life would be different than a Dwarf Beggar Fighter, because there were different starting pieces and helped dictate things before you went off to become a Grey Warden. From there, yes you could completely do a 180 like with other games of a similar nature, but you still had pieces of the ending that were affected by the choices you made during character Generation. My first time completing DA:O (I had like 3 characters before I settled on one I liked ) had mentions of his past in the ending pieces, that make his story different than my Dwarf Fighter who rose from nothing to become a "savior" of sorts. Though the storyline throughout the main part of the game was the same every time I played DA:O, my beginning and ending were different due to who I picked to be.
In retrospect, I can see how that part of my argument could come across in an unintentional way ...
To clarify, the remark about Dragon Age being "Mass Effect with swords" was in regards to the general game style in terms of narration and player choices etc, not (just) the different origins, which (as you correctly pointed out) do not exist in ME, at least not in such a pronounced form.
The origins themselves I have addressed in the first half of that sentence, where I mentioned them as a difference to Mass Effect.
In short, I was trying to demonstrate that there are games where non-visual(!) customisation can affect the story whilst simultaneously showing the similarities between both products in an attempt to relativise how much (or little) effect the origin customisation actually has on the character's story insofar that it IS still a proper story in both cases.
In one game you just get to exert more influence upon it than another, but this merely means a "change in director", not necessarily the narrative quality of the experience.
Better? I'm sorry - sometimes I just fail at expressing what I wish to convey.
). You can run around and do the side story lines, or just explore around and do whatever. Now I'm no champion of Skyrim being the most open game ever made but its not that narrow.
