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.

 LordofHats wrote:
She's describing the difference between a game where a role is given to you to play (Final Fantasy) and a game where a world is given to you and you create a role in it (Elder Scrolls). It's a fine difference by it's not mythical. In a traditional sense the later is a more 'proper' RPG in the sense that it more closely adheres to the spirit of the table top games RPG video games were initially modeled after.

If only people make that distinction nowadays.

Well the difference is one of philosophy, namely whether the game is more interested in presenting the player a story or in presenting the player with an environment. Most MMORPG's fall into the later category, most JRPG's the former. Western RPGs, especially those by Bioware, kind of float about in the middle leaning one way or the other (DA:O would lean towards the later, DA2 towards the former).

 LordofHats wrote:
Well the difference is one of philosophy, namely whether the game is more interested in presenting the player a story or in presenting the player with an environment. Most MMORPG's fall into the later category, most JRPG's the former. Western RPGs, especially those by Bioware, kind of float about in the middle leaning one way or the other (DA:O would lean towards the later, DA2 towards the former).

Yes and I like the ones with a perscribed character because I like JRPGS, but at the same time I like customizing the character because that doesn't change the story. It still happens a set way.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Well the difference is one of philosophy, namely whether the game is more interested in presenting the player a story or in presenting the player with an environment. Most MMORPG's fall into the later category, most JRPG's the former. Western RPGs, especially those by Bioware, kind of float about in the middle leaning one way or the other (DA:O would lean towards the later, DA2 towards the former).

Yes and I like the ones with a perscribed character because I like JRPGS, but at the same time I like customizing the character because that doesn't change the story. It still happens a set way.

So you like games with set stories is that what your saying?

nomotog wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Well the difference is one of philosophy, namely whether the game is more interested in presenting the player a story or in presenting the player with an environment. Most MMORPG's fall into the later category, most JRPG's the former. Western RPGs, especially those by Bioware, kind of float about in the middle leaning one way or the other (DA:O would lean towards the later, DA2 towards the former).

Yes and I like the ones with a perscribed character because I like JRPGS, but at the same time I like customizing the character because that doesn't change the story. It still happens a set way.

So you like games with set stories is that what your saying?

Yes. I want to be told a story. Something I can relate to, but it doesn't mean I am the character. I want set characters, a set background. It can be done very well in games. I think even better than movies.

I think going that absolutely into it you might as well be watching a movie (or just an action game without all the RPG clutter).

 Asherian Command wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Well the difference is one of philosophy, namely whether the game is more interested in presenting the player a story or in presenting the player with an environment. Most MMORPG's fall into the later category, most JRPG's the former. Western RPGs, especially those by Bioware, kind of float about in the middle leaning one way or the other (DA:O would lean towards the later, DA2 towards the former).

Yes and I like the ones with a perscribed character because I like JRPGS, but at the same time I like customizing the character because that doesn't change the story. It still happens a set way.

So you like games with set stories is that what your saying?

Yes. I want to be told a story. Something I can relate to, but it doesn't mean I am the character. I want set characters, a set background. It can be done very well in games. I think even better than movies.

 LordofHats wrote:
I think going that absolutely into it you might as well be watching a movie (or just an action game without all the RPG clutter).

Well he said it so I didn't have to. If you want to be told or shown a story, then you might as well rad a book or watch a movie.

 LordofHats wrote:
I think going that absolutely into it you might as well be watching a movie (or just an action game without all the RPG clutter).

Not exactly. I mean people still enjoyed final fantasy games 1-7. Yet you are stuck to a path, but that path happened no matter what. But it doesn't mean that is limiting you are given a point a to point b. But it is up to you to get there, how you get there is your choice.

You can choose any class you want pick any skill you want. But it is up to you in the end to decide how to do it.

Warcraft 3 works exactly the same, Starcraft 2 does as well. Just because you can't pick your character's face or actions does not mean it is limiting. There are hundreds of other choices you can make that may not have incidents later on from your choice but it does affect the way you play.

I mean is final fantasy 6 worse because you can choose your main characters name, but not their choices? The character may have your name, but he doesn't act because of you, he acts because he is a character.

Is Gordon Freeman worse because you can't decide his name and his choices? But at the same time you can explore and use the world around? Is that game worse because of that?

The answer is no, Those are great games, because they thought outside this box that you are given in games. A designer is given a box a tools and he can do whatever he wants with that boxs of tools but he can't use all the tools, but he can use some tools in creative ways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nomotog wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I think going that absolutely into it you might as well be watching a movie (or just an action game without all the RPG clutter).

Well he said it so I didn't have to. If you want to be told or shown a story, then you might as well rad a book or watch a movie.

That doesn't mean a game is less of a game, and should be a movie.

When I sit down I want to play a game that invites me into a story. I don't want to be an important character, I merely want to see a story, and live in that world but not as the hero, but as the heroes conscious thought.

It is this relationship between the player and the player character.

That are you really in control or are you just merely watching their actions and you are along for the ride? They may do different things but point a and point b are still the same results. Just how you got to point B is still your choice as a player.

I'm not saying they're not. But Halflife isn't an RPG, nor is WC3 or SC2. I'm not really saying that one kind of RPG is better than the other, merely that if you're so interested in set characters and stories, movies are going to do that better (for longer stories TV shows).

The hallmark of a game is that it's interactive. To not exploit that to its fullest is to not use the media to its fullest potential. Especially the RPG genre.

 LordofHats wrote:
I'm not saying they're not. But Halflife isn't an RPG, nor is WC3 or SC2. I'm not really saying that one kind of RPG is better than the other, merely that if you're so interested in set characters and stories, movies are going to do that better (for longer stories TV shows).

The hallmark of a game is that it's interactive. To not exploit that to its fullest is to not use the media to its fullest potential. Especially the RPG genre.

But can't it do that with a fixed setting a fixed character and a fixed plot?

It is interactive, but it should push the boundaries and I think it can show the character and the story better.

JRPGs do this quite often and it is often successful.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I'm not saying they're not. But Halflife isn't an RPG, nor is WC3 or SC2. I'm not really saying that one kind of RPG is better than the other, merely that if you're so interested in set characters and stories, movies are going to do that better (for longer stories TV shows).

The hallmark of a game is that it's interactive. To not exploit that to its fullest is to not use the media to its fullest potential. Especially the RPG genre.

But can't it do that with a fixed setting a fixed character and a fixed plot?

It is interactive, but it should push the boundaries and I think it can show the character and the story better.

JRPGs do this quite often and it is often successful.

No you can not exploit interactivity to it's fullest with a fixed game.

 Asherian Command wrote:
But can't it do that with a fixed setting a fixed character and a fixed plot?

Of course it can. I was mostly responding to the idea that games can do it better than movies. No they can't, and on top of that, defeats the purpose of a game to try. Games are interactive experiences, not passive ones. Some use story as a formality to engage the player in some kind of interaction (most FPS games are really just esport). RPG's imo, really should strive for either character or story interaction, or both. This could be as simple as customizing the skill trees as you like to suit your play, or to engage the player with the character's story.

EDIT: I'm saying that if 'fixed' is what you want, you're looking in the wrong genre, as fixed is the antithesis to interactive in this sense. To be fixed is to be ungame. Games should be moving away from fixed more and more as time goes on, not closer to.

It really depends on the story really, the realism of the game and the time period.

I really don't mind playing a female character in a game (i usually play a female character whenever it is possible, i do not understand how a macho guy would choose an oiled male chiseled like a greek god and watch its behind the whole game (if it is 3rd person), come out of the closet already!).

But just making the option there to change gender for the sake of playing without it adding to game is moot IMHO.

Some games wouldn't work Duke Nuke 'm , Lara croft (change it too male and it would have less emotional impact)
Deus Ex if it would be a female lead would have no impact on the story i think.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Lara croft (change it too male and it would have less emotional impact)

Uh? What? Why?

Duke Nukem would probably be MORE interesting with a Duchess really.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
But can't it do that with a fixed setting a fixed character and a fixed plot?

Of course it can. I was mostly responding to the idea that games can do it better than movies. No they can't, and on top of that, defeats the purpose of a game to try. Games are interactive experiences, not passive ones. Some use story as a formality to engage the player in some kind of interaction (most FPS games are really just esport). RPG's imo, really should strive for either character or story interaction, or both. This could be as simple as customizing the skill trees as you like to suit your play, or to engage the player with the character's story.

EDIT: I'm saying that if 'fixed' is what you want, you're looking in the wrong genre, as fixed is the antithesis to interactive in this sense. To be fixed is to be ungame. Games should be moving away from fixed more and more as time goes on, not closer to.

That's my philosophy regarding games as well.

Games, as a medium, are best when the player is given choices. When the player has no choices to make, it's not really much of a game.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
But can't it do that with a fixed setting a fixed character and a fixed plot?

Of course it can. I was mostly responding to the idea that games can do it better than movies. No they can't, and on top of that, defeats the purpose of a game to try. Games are interactive experiences, not passive ones. Some use story as a formality to engage the player in some kind of interaction (most FPS games are really just esport). RPG's imo, really should strive for either character or story interaction, or both. This could be as simple as customizing the skill trees as you like to suit your play, or to engage the player with the character's story.

EDIT: I'm saying that if 'fixed' is what you want, you're looking in the wrong genre, as fixed is the antithesis to interactive in this sense. To be fixed is to be ungame. Games should be moving away from fixed more and more as time goes on, not closer to.

Fixed character merely means that you can't change the character, but it does not mean you can't change everything.

I have explained this several times.

A fixed character is one who you can't change, but that doesn't mean the character is limited in any way. You will still have access to skill trees and specializations.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Fixed character merely means that you can't change the character, but it does not mean you can't change everything.

Being able to change more about the character is better than being able to change less.

I make no exceptions to this claim. There is no game that I cannot imagine being better if I could customize more about the character.

 Melissia wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Fixed character merely means that you can't change the character, but it does not mean you can't change everything.

Being able to change more about the character is better than being able to change less.

I make no exceptions to this claim. There is no game that I cannot imagine being better if I could customize more about the character.

You are really not budging on this at all.

Even if there is full customization on everything but the name of the character, the look of the character. The character's personality is set. You still wouldn't like the game because it doesn't give you the full customization of being able to control your character?

 Asherian Command wrote:


Fixed character merely means that you can't change the character, but it does not mean you can't change everything.

Yeah, but why should character's be fixed in that way? Shepard was a better character because while the character's role in the ME story was fixed but how that role could be played out came with variety. Sure pretty much every choice you make is in the grand scheme of things rather token* but the experience was much better because the player was given the ability to take the role in their own direction.

If anything, in this sense I consider JRPG's to just be lagging behind. They often tell good stories, and have good characters, but some of the best ones I've played (Star Ocean and Fire Emblem) stand out to me because I could interact with the character's personalities as more than a mere observer. Probably why I've never really been able to get into Final Fantasy, Kingdom Hearts, or Dragon Quest. Those games are hours and hours of decent (or not) combat and long cut scenes. At least when Metal Gear bombards me with long cutscenes they have all the flare and madness of Quintin Tarantino

*Made worse so by the god child, literally in a machine, who renders all of them utterly meaningless but we're not here to discuss ME3 failures But then we're just getting into the metaphysical mind feth of what choices we make are ever meaningful in the grand scheme of things

 LordofHats wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:


Fixed character merely means that you can't change the character, but it does not mean you can't change everything.

Yeah, but why should character's be fixed in that way? Shepard was a better character because while the character's role in the ME story was fixed but how that role could be played out came with variety. Sure pretty much every choice you make is in the grand scheme of things rather token* but the experience was much better because the player was given the ability to take the role in their own direction.

If anything, in this sense I consider JRPG's to just be lagging behind. They often tell good stories, and have good characters, but some of the best ones I've played (Star Ocean and Fire Emblem) stand out to me because I could interact with the character's personalities as more than a mere observer. Probably why I've never really been able to get into Final Fantasy, Kingdom Hearts, or Dragon Quest. Those games are hours and hours of decent (or not) combat and long cut scenes. At least when Metal Gear bombards me with long cutscenes they have all the flare and madness of Quintin Tarantino

*Made worse so by the god child, literally in a machine, who renders all of them utterly meaningless but we're not here to discuss ME3 failures But then we're just getting into the metaphysical mind feth of what choices we make are ever meaningful in the grand scheme of things

Eh. To each their own again. I personally think a game where you can see the personality of the character through their actions and being able to basically interact with the story. But I like the idea of the point a to point c approach. Where everything you do between those points is up to you.

It just doesn't effect the ending, there may be subtle differences but it is still the same ending. I.E. Legend of Zelda, Super Mario Bros, adventure games in general.

See Link is an interesting example, because Link never says anything. He has the emotional range of a bad Shakespearian actor (the only expressions he ever has are 'joy' 'shock' and 'anger'). It's unique as an approach, because it leaves the player to pretty much fill in the blanks of Link's character (hence why his name is so apt). Link isn't a fixed character. He's hardly a character at all. He's a player avatar, there to stand in for the player as they go through the adventure and experience it themselves.

I've always felt that key to why Zelda as a series has had such stay power (rose tinted glasses alone can't really explain it's constant unending success). Most of Nintendo's characters are like that. Mario, Link, Samus. Probably the classic character with the most personality on their end is Fox, and Samus that one time in the game that shall not be named.

 LordofHats wrote:
See Link is an interesting example, because Link never says anything. He has the emotional range of a bad Shakespearian actor (the only expressions he ever has are 'joy' 'shock' and 'anger'). It's unique as an approach, because it leaves the player to pretty much fill in the blanks of Link's character (hence why his name is so apt). Link isn't a fixed character. He's hardly a character at all. He's a player avatar, there to stand in for the player as they go through the adventure and experience it themselves.

I've always felt that key to why Zelda as a series has had such stay power (rose tinted glasses alone can't really explain it's constant unending success). Most of Nintendo's characters are like that. Mario, Link, Samus. Probably the classic character with the most personality on their end is Fox, and Samus that one time in the game that shall not be named.

I would disagree completely.




Just because they are silent does not mean they are not a fixed character.

Samus actually has a personality she is curious. She only uses her body language. You can have an entire story without dialogue.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Even if there is full customization on everything but the name of the character, the look of the character. The character's personality is set.

"You can have any color you want, as long as it's black" was one of the reasons why Ford lost market share to other companies.

 Melissia wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Even if there is full customization on everything but the name of the character, the look of the character. The character's personality is set.

"You can have any color you want, as long as it's black" was one of the reasons why Ford lost market share to other companies.

What? You can color it anyway you want but no matter what you do the character is set the way they are.

Is that wrong to do?

No. You all keep pushing for more customization.

It matters on the game itself. What is its message?

What is the point of the game.

If the game is skyrim esque then yes.

But if it is about a story about a character finding themselves, or fighting a hopeless fight or fighting because aliens have arrived on earth and you are well known human being.

I mean human beings don't have to talk.

A silent protagonist done right can be a great character.

Is there a human being in existence not curious?

The first rule of characters is that if they can be summed up in a few sentences with vague words like curious, they're not very deep. Yes, you can tell a story with no dialogue, but you're either telling a very simple story, or you're telling one where the protagonist is ultimately irrelevant. They're just a stand in to invite the player to react to what that character is seeing. Any personality or traits, you associate with Samus in earlier games, is ultimate something we as players read into her using a very limited and vague set of ques.

Really the issue in Other M, has nothing to do with Samus having a pre-established character so much as in Other M, her character sucks. Did you even watch that video? There are only vague and limited things that are shown to us about Samus (like Link's limited emotional displays), but they're vague. Being just a few steps above a blank state isn't the same thing as having a well defined character. They're ques hinting at a personality not personality itself. That's what I'm saying. Those ques are there to invite us to define the character ourselves on our own terms, not the terms the developer strictly defined.

Also lol at anime Link XD It's like someone never played the games but watched lots of 80's TV and assumed it would just work out

 Asherian Command wrote:
You can color it anyway you want but no matter what you do the character is set the way they are.

So I can't install air conditioning? What about power doors? Etc etc etc.

You keep talking about it as if writers are ultimately the only thing that matters. They aren't. Games are more than just writing. Games are more than just the visual scenes that get put through. Ultimately, what defines a game is what the player can do.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Is that wrong to do?

Yes.

 Asherian Command wrote:
But if it is about a story about a character finding themselves, or fighting a hopeless fight or fighting because aliens have arrived on earth and you are well known human being.

You can still have character customization and create a character that can be put through this story. And more than likely, the players will do it better than any writer would.

 LordofHats wrote:
Is there a human being in existence not curious?

The first rule of characters is that if they can be summed up in a few sentences with vague words like curious, they're not very deep. Yes, you can tell a story with no dialogue, but you're either telling a very simple story, or you're telling one where the protagonist is ultimately irrelevant. They're just a stand in to invite the player to react to what that character is seeing. Any personality or traits, you associate with Samus in earlier games, is ultimate something we as players read into her using a very limited and vague set of ques.

Really the issue in Other M, has nothing to do with Samus having a pre-established character so much as in Other M, her character sucks. Did you even watch that video? There are only vague and limited things that are shown to us about Samus (like Link's limited emotional displays), but they're vague. Being just a few steps above a blank state isn't the same thing as having a well defined character. They're ques hinting at a personality not personality itself. That's what I'm saying. Those ques are there to invite us to define the character ourselves on our own terms, not the terms the developer strictly defined.

Also lol at anime Link XD It's like someone never played the games but watched lots of 80's TV and assumed it would just work out

But that is still a fixed character. That is a character. That is a character that you put your feelings onto. And is not a blank slate.

Samus Aran has never been a blank slate and she still has a personality even though we see limited things about her.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
You can color it anyway you want but no matter what you do the character is set the way they are.

So I can't install air conditioning? What about power doors?

Is that wrong to do?

Yes.

 Asherian Command wrote:
But if it is about a story about a character finding themselves, or fighting a hopeless fight or fighting because aliens have arrived on earth and you are well known human being.

You can still have character customization and create a character that can be put through this story. And more than likely, the players will do it better than any writer would.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Samus Aran has never been a blank slate

Until Other M, Samus was the shining example of what a blank slate character is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:
But I don't think we should give them a lot of choices.

Because you are a writer, not a game designer.

We're not talking about books. We're talking about games. Writers make gakky games. So do movie directors. The skillset needed for writing and directing is not sufficient for making a good game.

 Melissia wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Samus Aran has never been a blank slate

Until Other M, Samus was the shining example of what a blank slate character is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:
But I don't think we should give them a lot of choices.

Because you are a writer, not a game designer.

We're not talking about books. We're talking about games. Writers make gakky games. So do movie directors. The skillset needed for writing and directing is not sufficient for making a good game.

I disagree. Samus was never a blank slate character.

Blank slate is fill in personality and character here.

I think that you just insulted me when you called me not a game designer when I am in-fact a game designer. I just think certain ways are better than others. Its an ideology.

I think certain paths work.

I think mechanics as metaphor a great way to get a point across.

I am a writer and a game designer. I work with all the people involved and get a product out. Even with my limited experience in it.

I think a great story comes after the mechanics and everything has been completed and then we create the story afterwards.

The Process of making a game is very much different from the way hollywood or books do it.

The story comes last. Dialogue is written during this time as well. We have two months to complete it. And thats not a very long time.

So what happens usually is that in the beginning we start with a vision, once all the programming is done and so is the artwork and character modelling then we use that world and make a story.

 Asherian Command wrote:
But that is still a fixed character.

A character who barely exists beyond a name and appearance is not a blank slate, but they're not filled with personality either. A character that is purposely designed to be filled by the player can't really be described accurately as having a fixed character. The character is fluid, and will be interpreted differently between players. Naturally, humans talk about these things, so specific threads come up to dominate that perception, but it's still just a perception of the character. The video you linked pretty much states this outright.

There is a lot of wiggle room between "blank slate" and "fixed." It's not one or the other, there's a whole field of in between. Really very few characters are complete blank slates, honestly I doubt that would work as a player needs some kind of que from a character to make them think that character is a person. If Link never reacted to anything, it would just get kind of creepy and not very inviting

Really how characters are handled comes down to exactly what the developer is trying to do (and namely how they're spending their budget, cause money ain't forever). Bioware likes taking the almost exact middle ground, making characters that can be defined by the player but also are very fixed in many ways. Nintendo often falls back on its player avatars with their subtle reactions. Square tends to pull out all stops, going fully into creating a character and handing them to the player and saying "have fun." Halo just puts a guy in armor and write him a bunch of one liners.

It's not this;



It's this;