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.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Blank slate is fill in personality and character here.

And, until Other M, that is what defines Samus Aran.

Hell, in the original NES game, you had to get a special ending just to know anything more than their name.

Samus Aran has been used as an example of a blank slate character ever since she was created.

 LordofHats wrote:

 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;

I completely agree. But I do not want what melissia suggests which is all the time we get free range and free choices to do whatever we want.

That I think is stupid. The middle ground is usually the best way to go. Not going full out and say design your own character! Like the game Home. Which is very much I have no idea, and the story and narrative are determined by the players actions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Blank slate is fill in personality and character here.

And, until Other M, that is what defines Samus Aran.

\

No it was not. We could not choose for the character what she did. Stop confusing the two.

She was very much in the middle ground, but not a true blank slate.

Her choices we cannot decide, she will always get from point a to point b, and it will always be the same ending.

SHe is not a blank slate. Skyrim characters are a blank slate.

 Asherian Command wrote:
No it was not. We could not choose for the character what she did.

Yes we did. That's part of what makes it a game.

 Asherian Command wrote:
SHe is not a blank slate. Skyrim characters are a blank slate.

Basically what you're saying is you have no damn clue what you're talking about.

Just because the character has a name and nothing else does not mean they're no longer a blank slate character.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:
The middle ground is usually the best way to go.

Centrism for centrism's sake is not wisdom and should never be confused as such.

The middle ground between horrible and great is not inherently better.

 Melissia wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
No it was not. We could not choose for the character what she did.

Yes we did. That's part of what makes it a game.

 Asherian Command wrote:
SHe is not a blank slate. Skyrim characters are a blank slate.

Basically what you're saying is you have no damn clue what you're talking about.

Just because the character has a name and nothing else does not mean they're no longer a blank slate character.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:
The middle ground is usually the best way to go.

Centrism for centrism's sake is not wisdom and should never be confused as such.

Okay enough will your bull.

I take a broader stance than you. You are specific you want this to be this.

But lets look at it again. Those choices are illusions, you do not choose the character, you are merely playing the story as the designers created. How you do that is up to you, but those choices happen either way. You are the variable that is needed but you do not make samus aran a character. Anyone can take your place as a player and those same things will happen.

There is a big difference.

She is not a classic example of the blank slate.

A classic example is anything from skyrim with a character with a customizability that goes beyond the face and race.

In this case the best way to do a character in gaming is the middle ground usually.

But it does not mean it always has to be the default sometimes the fixed character is better. Rarely the Blank Slate is the best choice.

For a horror game a Fixed Character is better. For an RPG a middle ground character is better than a blank slate. But for an ORPG, a blank slate is superior.

 Asherian Command wrote:
I completely agree. But I do not want what melissia suggests which is all the time we get free range and free choices to do whatever we want.

That's not necessarily what she's getting at. It's honestly kind of surprising how few games with strong story actually take the Bioware approach. They're growing, but especially in RPG's, I feel the Bioware approach is superior to the others. More fixed definition characters better serve their roll in action games, or games where the role you play is secondary to some other interaction. In RPG's, the 'role' is the game and the genre is best served by allowing as much freedom in that roll as can be managed.

She was very much in the middle ground, but not a true blank slate.

She's most definitely not middle ground. Up until Metroid Fusion, she was about as close to tabula rasa as you can get without actually being tabula rasa. There were only a few things to hint at her underlying character, namely her badassness, showing mercy to the baby Metroid, and some subtle characterizations in Fusion that hinted she actually has a life outside her armor, but nothing really all that well defined (most people really define her in the terms of the mid 90's Metroid Manga, not really using anything from the games). Other M... I think we're all best served just pretending that didn't happen.

Really, characters like Samus and Link are best served in the kind of games they're in. Adventure games. The focus on such games is the adventure, and having a sweeping deep emotional story just kind of gets in the way of that (not that it can't be done, but at that point you're edging more into the territory of what I'd call an action game, where the focus of the game is on the actions of the character, Uncharted being a great example).

But then I've always felt the action game is kind of to video games as the taco is to Mexican food. We all love tacos, but they're kind of lazy.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
I completely agree. But I do not want what melissia suggests which is all the time we get free range and free choices to do whatever we want.

That's not necessarily what she's getting at. It's honestly kind of surprising how few games with strong story actually take the Bioware approach. They're growing, but especially in RPG's, I feel the Bioware approach is superior to the others. More fixed definition characters better serve their roll in action games, or games where the role you play is secondary to some other interaction. In RPG's, the 'role' is the game and the genre is best served by allowing as much freedom in that roll as can be managed.

She was very much in the middle ground, but not a true blank slate.

She's most definitely not middle ground. Up until Metroid Fusion, she was about as close to tabula rasa as you can get without actually being tabula rasa. There were only a few things to hint at her underlying character, namely her badassness, showing mercy to the baby Metroid, and some subtle characterizations in Fusion that hinted she actually has a life outside her armor, but nothing really all that well defined (most people really define her in the terms of the mid 90's Metroid Manga, not really using anything from the games). Other M... I think we're all best served just pretending that didn't happen.

Really, characters like Samus and Link are best served in the kind of games they're in. Adventure games. The focus on such games is the adventure, and having a sweeping deep emotional story just kind of gets in the way of that (not that it can't be done, but at that point you're edging more into the territory of what I'd call an action game, where the focus of the game is on the actions of the character, Uncharted being a great example).

'
Yes finally some agreeance with people -.-

But on a correction ORPGs work better with blank slates.

Games like Mass Effect are better as a middle ground character. That I agree with.

But there are times when a fixed character is superior to both these types.

Such as in horror games, or message games or games that tell a story and has a deep underlying message.

But then I've always felt the action game is kind of to video games as the taco is to Mexican food. We all love tacos, but they're kind of lazy.

Please note that doesn't mean it is lazy. There could be hard work in that.

For example This is a game with fixed characters but allows multiple choices. Or the illusion of choices in the game. The User in this game is you but the dialogue is fixed and gives this illusion you are in control.
http://die.clay.io/

 Asherian Command wrote:
I take a broader stance than you.

No you don't. You prefer mediocrity, I prefer greatness.

 Asherian Command wrote:
But lets look at it again. Those choices are illusions

The illusion of choice is better than no choice at all. A game designer that tells the player "feth you, you don't get to choose anything" is a gakky game designer who should be fired and blacklisted from the industry for trying to make a movie instead of a game.

 Asherian Command wrote:
You are the variable that is needed but you do not make samus aran a character. Anyone can take your place as a player and those same things will happen.

False.

There is a big difference between the way I play Samus Aran and the way the next person does.

 Asherian Command wrote:
She is not a classic example of the blank slate.

She is the most commonly used example of the temrm.

 Asherian Command wrote:
A classic example is anything from skyrim with a character with a customizability that goes beyond the face and race.

All of the arguments you made can be applied to Skyrim.

Let me demonstrate:

You don't choose the character-- you're always a convict about to be executed who has the secret power of shouting really loud, and you're merely playing their story as the designers created. You're playing the dovahkiin. How you go about playing the story is up to you, but that story happens either way. You are the variant that is needed, but you do not make the dovahkiin a character-- they're always the dovahkiin. Anyone can take your place as a player and those same things will happen.

This would be just one of more than a dozen times you've directly contradicted yourself in this thread.

 Asherian Command wrote:
A classic example is anything from skyrim with a character with a customizability that goes beyond the face and race.

In this case the best way to do a character in gaming is the middle ground usually.

But it does not mean it always has to be the default sometimes the fixed character is better. Rarely the Blank Slate is the best choice.

For a horror game a Fixed Character is better. For an RPG a middle ground character is better than a blank slate. But for an ORPG, a blank slate is superior.

Isn't Skyrim not a true blank slate either due to being shoehorned in as the dragonborn? Wouldn't it sort of be more like a hybrid between a blank slate and established character type due to the way the main story is structured. A better example would probably be Morrowind where you're less shoved into the story line. Meaning to streamline they're sort of shifting more and more towards the established type?

 n0t_u wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
A classic example is anything from skyrim with a character with a customizability that goes beyond the face and race.

In this case the best way to do a character in gaming is the middle ground usually.

But it does not mean it always has to be the default sometimes the fixed character is better. Rarely the Blank Slate is the best choice.

For a horror game a Fixed Character is better. For an RPG a middle ground character is better than a blank slate. But for an ORPG, a blank slate is superior.

Isn't Skyrim not a true blank slate either due to being shoehorned in as the dragonborn? Wouldn't it sort of be more like a hybrid between a blank slate and established character type due to the way the main story is structured. A better example would probably be Morrowind where you're less shoved into the story line. Meaning to streamline they're sort of shifting more and more towards the established type?

I think it is less a hybrid, because yes you still have to kill the main enemy, but you are still undefinable element you can still do certain things up to the event. The end result will be the same how you get there is completely undefinable, but I agree that morrowind where you get more choice is probably a better example. I call elder scrolls 'skyrim' because that is probably the most identifiable way I remember it.

Well, define hard work. I hear those poor bastards at Acti-Blizz are just suffering making the same game for the tenth year in a row. And those poor Assassin's Creed devs. So hard releasing last years game with a few minor updates every 12 months

I'm not saying no effort goes into it. I'm saying that if I told someone "Make me a game, any game!" and they handed me an action game, I'd look them in the eye and say "I say you can make any game you want and you're giving me another action game? Don't want to try something a little more creative there buddy? I mean, I said any game. Go wild man, take some risks!"

The action game is like the action movie. It's the easiest kind of game to put together and market. It's 'safe', like a taco. No one ever had a bad party by hiring a caterer to bring them a whole gak ton of tacos.

 Melissia wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
I take a broader stance than you.

No you don't. You prefer mediocrity, I prefer greatness.

 Asherian Command wrote:
But lets look at it again. Those choices are illusions

The illusion of choice is better than no choice at all. A game designer that tells the player "feth you, you don't get to choose anything" is a gakky game designer who should be fired and blacklisted from the industry for trying to make a movie instead of a game.

 Asherian Command wrote:
You are the variable that is needed but you do not make samus aran a character. Anyone can take your place as a player and those same things will happen.

False.

There is a big difference between the way I play Samus Aran and the way the next person does.

 Asherian Command wrote:
She is not a classic example of the blank slate.

She is the most commonly used example of the temrm.

 Asherian Command wrote:
A classic example is anything from skyrim with a character with a customizability that goes beyond the face and race.

All of the arguments you made can be applied to Skyrim.

Let me demonstrate:

You don't choose the character-- you're always a convict about to be executed who has the secret power of shouting really loud, and you're merely playing their story as the designers created. You're playing the dovahkiin. How you go about playing the story is up to you, but that story happens either way. You are the variant that is needed, but you do not make the dovahkiin a character-- they're always the dovahkiin. Anyone can take your place as a player and those same things will happen.

This would be just one of more than a dozen times you've directly contradicted yourself in this thread.

But samus is not a blank slate yet again. We can choose those actions.

Yes the dovahkiin is a character but he is still a blank slate, he/she has no personality, the character can be filled in anyway possible.

Your just grasping at straws that have relevance when they don't.

Limiting the player's choices is not a bad thing. Limiting all choices and all actions the player can take is bad. Getting shoehorned into fighting only in hallways is a bad design decision.

I am saying a character can be any three, but that does not mean a blank slate is superior. A fixed character is superior in many ways and is a tool to be used.

Characters are tools for the designer to use to encourage the player.

I am not giving you a set path but the major events will always remain the same. But the character is still defined by their actions that they take in the game.

Giving this illusion of choice is important but there is also this idea that blank slate characters are superior which completely false. And thats where we disagree. I agree certain times they are superior in terms of ORPGs being the best example.

But Samus Aran I will say is not a blank slate, she is still a character.

 Asherian Command wrote:
you can still do certain things up to the event. The end result will be the same how you get there is completely undefinable

Just like in Metroid.

 Asherian Command wrote:
but I agree that morrowind where you get more choice is probably a better example. I call elder scrolls 'skyrim' because that is probably the most identifiable way I remember it.

Nope, Morrowind you still have a predefined character role just as much as in Skyrim and Metroid, so according to your (incorrect) definition of the term, that's not a real blank slate character.

 LordofHats wrote:
Well, define hard work. I hear those poor bastards at Acti-Blizz are just suffering making the same game for the tenth year in a row. And those poor Assassin's Creed devs. So hard releasing last years game with a few minor updates every 12 months

I'm not saying no effort goes into it. I'm saying that if I told someone "Make me a game, any game!" and they handed me an action game, I'd look them in the eye and say "I say you can make any game you want and you're giving me another action game? Don't want to try something a little more creative there buddy? I mean, I said any game. Go wild man, take some risks!"

The action game is like the action movie. It's the easiest kind of game to put together and market. It's 'safe', like a taco. No one ever had a bad party by hiring a caterer to bring them a whole gak ton of tacos.

Yes but I don't think that happens all the time. I mean look at the game series Warcraft 1-3. The end and beginning results are the same.

And no major decision is effected by you as the player. The characters are fixed. They are customizable to a limited degree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
you can still do certain things up to the event. The end result will be the same how you get there is completely undefinable

Just like in Metroid.

 Asherian Command wrote:
but I agree that morrowind where you get more choice is probably a better example. I call elder scrolls 'skyrim' because that is probably the most identifiable way I remember it.

Nope, Morrowind you still have a predefined character role just as much as in Skyrim and Metroid, so according to your (incorrect) definition of the term, that's not a real blank slate character.

Wrong.

Because Samus has acted around other characters. Fusion with other hunters involved she interacts with them. And those actions define her.

And yes like metriod but at the same time no.

Because in the end you can choose who ever you want to be in skyrim, in skyrim you are given more than just a fixed route, its an ORPG, your character can be customized to your liking.

Samus will always have the same abilities and make the same decisions.

Skyrim you can go any path you wish, you can join the empire or the stormcloaks, that is a major decision. And that changes bit and pieces.

Really the only characters I can think of in games that are true blank slates are those of an MMORPG and maybe Fallout 3. The player character serves no purpose but to be defined by their player. Outside of that, true blank slates as I said, are probably too bland to entice a player's interest. The Skyrim character will always be the Dragonborn, the Morrowind character the Nerevarine, and the Oblivion character the Champion of Cyrodil (and they're all prisoners... Who are apparently cool with saving an Empire that wanted to imprison them for some reason...). The Fallout 3 guy though as far as I remember is just Fallout 3 guy.

 LordofHats wrote:
Really the only characters I can think of in games that are true blank slates are those of an MMORPG and maybe Fallout 3. The player character serves no purpose but to be defined by their player. Outside of that, true blank slates as I said, are probably too bland to entice a player's interest. The Skyrim character will always be the Dragonborn, the Morrowind character the Nerevarine, and the Oblivion character the Champion of Cyrodil (and they're all prisoners... Who are apparently cool with saving an Empire that wanted to imprison them for some reason...). The Fallout 3 guy though as far as I remember is just Fallout 3 guy.

That I can agree with,

But I don't think that makes them superior. Blank Slates are in no way superior to any type of character.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Because Samus has acted around other characters

Not in Metroid.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Because in the end you can choose who ever you want to be in skyrim

No you don't. You're always the dovahkiin. You can't be anything else other than the dovahkiin. Just like in Metroid, you can't be anything else but a bounty hunter.

 Asherian Command wrote:
in skyrim you are given more than just a fixed route

Just like in metroid.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Samus will always have the same abilities and make the same decisions.

No she won't. You can pick up abilities in a wide variety of orders, and you can make different decisions on how to deal with the situation in front of you just as you can in Skyrim.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Skyrim you can go any path you wish

Just like in Metroid, where you can explore a lot of places and are not confined to just a single hallway.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

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

Uh? What? Why?

There is a nugget of insight here. Square intend to exploit Lara's gender. (http://kotaku.com/5917400/youll-want-to-protect-the-new-less-curvy-lara-croft) Also I said it once and no one disagreed with me. New lara has very little in the way of interesting. The fact that she is a woman is one of the most inserting facts about her. (Second only to her tendency to die violently.)

 Melissia wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Because Samus has acted around other characters

Not in Metroid.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Because in the end you can choose who ever you want to be in skyrim

No you don't. You're always the dovahkiin. You can't be anything else other than the dovahkiin. Just like in Metroid, you can't be anything else but a bounty hunter.

 Asherian Command wrote:
in skyrim you are given more than just a fixed route

Just like in metroid.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Samus will always have the same abilities and make the same decisions.

No she won't. You can pick up abilities in a wide variety of orders, and you can make different decisions on how to deal with the situation in front of you just as you can in Skyrim.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Skyrim you can go any path you wish

Just like in Metroid, where you can explore a lot of places and are not confined to just a single hallway.

Yet again you are grasping at straws. You keep saying nope. Not listening.

Your arguments are flawed beyond a doubt.

There is alot of problems

Metriod Fusion, Echoes all have her interacting with other characters. They don't just tell do this for me. They actually talk to you and she reacts. You can't decide not to do it. Skyrim you can kill them and leave and not do that quest.

Metriod prime you will always face the same bosses at the same point, you will always get that same armor, your armor is not customizable, the character will always make the same decisions because she is the hero, and she does what is right. And she never hurts civilians. She is there to beat up bad guys.

Samus will always have the same abilities and make the same decisions

The underlying question of all characters is not what they do but why they do it. Samus has never given us much indication for her motivations. What little we can tell, she probably really hates Ridely cause he wrecked her parents, but is revenge all there is to her? The Chozo were a peaceful people, who valued knowledge above all else. Why then is their last legacy a human woman decked out in weaponry? Why did they create Samus? Does she know? Is she moving to some higher purpose left to her by her adoptive family?

We don't really know. It's the mystery of Samus that makes her appealing, and that's a mystery that doesn't exist in fixed characters. What she does, in the strictest sense is clear. She kicks butt and takes names, but why? Why is she so often alone, yet seemingly completely willing to help others? We can create all kinds of answers but the games don't really provide them for us so much as leave us bread crumbs to try and piece together.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Metriod Fusion
Metriod prime

I never mentioned either of those games. I talked about this one.

For someone whining about me supposedly not reading your posts, you're adamantly refusing to read mine.

 LordofHats wrote:

Samus will always have the same abilities and make the same decisions

The underlying question of all characters is not what they do but why they do it. Samus has never given us much indication for her motivations. What little we can tell, she probably really hates Ridely cause he wrecked her parents, but is revenge all there is to her? The Chozo were a peaceful people, who valued knowledge above all else. Why then is their last legacy a human woman decked out in weaponry? Why did they create Samus? Does she know? Is she moving to some higher purpose left to her by her adoptive family?

We don't really know. It's the mystery of Samus that makes her appealing, and that's a mystery that doesn't exist in fixed characters. What she does, in the strictest sense is clear. She kicks butt and takes names, but why? Why is she so often alone, yet seemingly completely willing to help others? We can create all kinds of answers but the games don't really provide them for us so much as leave us bread crumbs to try and piece together.

Though mystery still doesn't mean it is a fixed character.

A fixed Character can be undefined in their path.

A fixed character still has many things. A characters motivations may be undefined and we may never truly know why they do things, that does mean they are any less of a fixed character or less of a person.

I mean a character can always be mysterious but that does not mean that the character itself is a blank slate because they do not have those defined. Her motivations we can see are for good. Not just because she stumbles upon it.

For someone whining about me supposedly not reading your posts, you're adamantly refusing to read mine.

You first

A blank slate character is often a character with no characterization or minimal characterization. The idea is for the player to fill in most of that information themselves. I don't think it fits samus. She has so much background to her.

nomotog wrote:
A blank slate character is often a character with no characterization or minimal characterization. The idea is for the player to fill in most of that information themselves. I don't think it fits samus. She has so much background to her.

Thank god someone picked that up.

The Dovahlikiin has no history apart from being a prisoner.


Games usually get around having a background by having the stupidest cliche of all time.... Amnesia....

Now this works only if done right. (Hint hint Knights of the Old Republic did this perfectly)

 Asherian Command wrote:
You first

Your own lack of clarity, coherence, consistency, and cogency in your posts is not my problem, but yours. I'm not obligated to clarify your posts foryou, or to give your posts more coherence than you give them, or to stop you from contradicting yourself, or to compensate you for your lack of logical cogency.

I indicated I was talking about Metroid. I clarified that I am not talking about later games. I then re-clarified that I am talking specifically about Metroid, the NES game. There is no reason to assume I am or was talking about anything else, and you making those assumptions just means you shouldn't be taken seriously.

Ash, it looks like you have very narrow definition of a blank slate, one that I'm not sure is really applicable for most games.

Some people like narrative games where they follow along for the story. I loved FF6. But there has been more and more push for sandbox games. Where the player's actions drive the story. Like Minecraft.

Developers can create narrative games. It's good. They can be great. But some people are annoyed when most are from the same pov. Which this thread is about. While I don't agree that being able to create an unique character is always better than being assigned one (and everyone can we avoid all these absolutes? It makes discussion contentious. ) it definitely can avoid the constant issue of being stuck in the "default pov". It gives the player choice (while it might not affect game mechanics, it does affect aesthetic) which IMHO is a good thing.

 Asherian Command wrote:

nomotog wrote:
A blank slate character is often a character with no characterization or minimal characterization. The idea is for the player to fill in most of that information themselves. I don't think it fits samus. She has so much background to her.

Thank god someone picked that up.

The Dovahlikiin has no history apart from being a prisoner.


Games usually get around having a background by having the stupidest cliche of all time.... Amnesia....

Now this works only if done right. (Hint hint Knights of the Old Republic did this perfectly)

I don't know if I would call Dovahlikiin a blank slate. That is normally reserved for characters who don't get defined. Well Dovahlikiin is defined by the player's choice. They are more a customizable character not a blank slate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
You first

Your own lack of clarity, coherence, consistency, and cogency in your posts is not my problem, but yours. I'm not obligated to clarify your posts foryou, or to give your posts more coherence than you give them, or to stop you from contradicting yourself, or to compensate you for your lack of logical cogency.

I indicated I was talking about Metroid. I clarified that I am not talking about later games. I then re-clarified that I am talking specifically about Metroid, the NES game. There is no reason to assume I am or was talking about anything else, and you making those assumptions just means you shouldn't be taken seriously.

If you only talk about the very early metroid games, then samuse is mostly a blankly blank blank slate. The thing about a blank slate is that they always build up characterization as they roll along. A character that starts as a blank slate might get expanded on latter. Like for example the characters in borderlands. (One even turned out to be transexual. Kind of.)

 AdeptSister wrote:
Ash, it looks like you have very narrow definition of a blank slate, one that I'm not sure is really applicable for most games.

Some people like narrative games where they follow along for the story. I loved FF6. But there has been more and more push for sandbox games. Where the player's actions drive the story. Like Minecraft.

Developers can create narrative games. It's good. They can be great. But some people are annoyed when most are from the same pov. Which this thread is about. While I don't agree that being able to create an unique character is always better than being assigned one (and everyone can we avoid all these absolutes? It makes discussion contentious. ) it definitely can avoid the constant issue of being stuck in the "default pov". It gives the player choice (while it might not affect game mechanics, it does affect aesthetic) which IMHO is a good thing.

I think its the only/one of the few definitions I am very narrow on.

I personally see the sandbox games taking over. And slowly becoming the dominant things in games. (Which it kind of is becoming, how sad that is actually.)

I argue for variance and variety in games.

We can't have the same thing over and over again.

According to your definition, your example of Skyrim is not a blank slate.

Huh. This thread went tangential overnight.

So... would you guys consider the Nameless One to be a blank slate? I would say almost by definition he may be the only character that truly is.

 Melissia wrote:
According to your definition, your example of Skyrim is not a blank slate.

The character has no background history, no personality, and changes each and everytime someone plays that character.
The player determines all actions.

Samus Aran is not an example of this because of her background history, and personality. And her personality and ways of going about things do not change.