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

 Melissia wrote:
It's entirely relevant.

By all means, explain how. Or is this it:

 Melissia wrote:

 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?

 Melissia wrote:

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.

editing in an rather important 'n'.

 Manchu wrote:

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.

 Manchu wrote:
What about a character that other players can see?

Sure.
And it can be fun.

But does it inherently make the game itself better?
I do not think so.

It may make it more popular.

Plenty of people prefer games that are frankly awful but darn pretty, all the time.

I do not mean visuals are irrelevant.

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.

 kirsanth wrote:
I stated that it is a character that cannot be seen.

I have yet to find a shooter that had you play as an invisible character (cloaking mechanisms aside).

 Manchu wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
It's entirely relevant.

By all means, explain how.

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.

Journey would actually be worse with customization, now that I think of it.

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?

Yes.

 kirsanth wrote:
But does it inherently make the game itself better?
I do not think so.

It may make it more popular.

So does being able to choose Man- or FemShep in ME make it a better game or a more popular one?

[edit: combining this post and the previous one.]

 Manchu wrote:

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.

Well If you don't get it, Oh well.

 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.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nomotog wrote:
Well If you don't get it, Oh well.

It's not that I don't get it. It's that I think it's not convincing.

 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.

 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.)

Exactly.

Red Dead Redemption is a perfect example.

Could it have been done differently?
Sure.

Is it a worse game for it?
No.

 Melissia wrote:

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.

Melissia wrote:

 kirsanth wrote:
But does it inherently make the game itself better?

Yes.

No.

kirsanth wrote:Journey would actually be worse with customization, now that I think of it.

Editing to add:
Well said, Chongara.

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.

 Melissia wrote:

 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:

 Melissia wrote:

 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.

Ok, so some games can be improved this way. . .
Yes.

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.

 Melissia wrote:

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.

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?