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.

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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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

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.

 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.

That make any sense?

 Melissia wrote:
You don't put cheese on all your sandwiches?

HERETIC!

Not on Asiago I don't. Too cheesy

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.

 Manchu wrote:

 kirsanth wrote:

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

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

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

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!!!

 illuknisaa wrote:
Manchu I'm pretty sure you haven't even played skyrim if that is your opinion.

Seriously, clue in. Skyrim is whatever you make it.

Manchu, regarding Skyrim: On that, we certainly agree.

 Manchu wrote:

 illuknisaa wrote:
Manchu I'm pretty sure you haven't even played skyrim if that is your opinion.

Seriously, clue in. Skyrim is whatever you make it.

While true to a certain extent, don't you have to be dragon born in the game?

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?

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:

 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".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 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.

Melissia is correct; completing the main quest in Skyrim is not "beating" the game.

 Manchu wrote:
Melissia is correct; completing the main quest in Skyrim is not "beating" the game.

OK, thanks for the clarification.

 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!

Chongara wrote:

 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.

How do you regard games like fighting games, that has a pre-determined selection of ready-designed characters?

Is the selection gameplay or aesthetics based? Maybe a bit of both?

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".