On Main Characters

[Helm]

Goldmund: in your scenario, a choice WAS made, the repercussions of this choice might be close to minute, scripting-wise. But a choice was made. A choice is not presented but fake. I am very aware that there is no 'freedom' in video games and it's quite an art-form to make a good illusion of freedom for the player. We as game designers are a bit more critical when we play these games than the average joe because usually we know how they're made and we're testing the limits. But still, a choice with minute represcussions, a choice with some reprecussions, a choice with game-reaching repercussions, these are all things to discuss on their own merits. FAKE choices don't and shouldn't exist in computer games.

Richard Longhurst and the box that ate time. Beard option. This isn't a fake choice. When you adjust it, more or less beard appears on the character. That's all this choice dones. But I laughed, it added to the game, it COULD have added more but that's a different discussion. I didn't click on +beard and have the game tell me "oh come on, you don't need more beard".

The thing is, a choice is the way we interact with a game. Even if the choice is limited, like in most linear adventure games, go solve this puzzle or that puzzle first, when the game spells it out: YOU HAVE TWO CHOICES, and then essentially robs you, that's not nice, it's like pissing on the interactivity principle. If that's how it is, why don't the game just do a huge cutscene from beginning to end and tell me what my character does and I'll see it later. Oh, wait

Mordalles, good work on flexing your impressive ironic muscle. You've made a great impression on your peers.

[Kinoko]

Richard Longhurst and the box that ate time. Beard option. This isn't a fake choice. When you adjust it, more or less beard appears on the character. That's all this choice dones. But I laughed, it added to the game, it COULD have added more but that's a different discussion. I didn't click on +beard and have the game tell me "oh come on, you don't need more beard".

I would have laughed at that. Enjoyment = mission accomplished.

[Helm]

Sure. Some aren't as easily amused.

I was thinking about your 'sitting next to the woman on the ship' thing. If the game aknowledged that sort of role-playing, what you did would indeed be grounds on which to say the game is great. If the game perhaps, when you moved there and looked at the sea together, after a while subtly switched the music to aknowledge what you were trying to do, that'd be great. That would be extremely little scripting that DOES go a long way to make the experience so much more fuller.

But as it stands, you put that extra bit in on your own, completely, and it's a very nebulous argument to suggest that 'the game was so good that it called for me adding to it on my own'. You could add to a connect 4 match if you felt like it, as I said before.

Somebody mentioned before what ages these games are designed for. Yes, I think this is a key issue. These games seem designed for 10 year olds, the moral choices they usually present and the depth of character that is on display. Doesn't mean a 20 year old can't enjoy a game designed for 10 year olds, though. But if they do, they have to accept that the game will seem to treat them like idiots.

Truly great games, in my opinion ( like Quest for Glory 4 ) have humour and content for all ages. Stuff you'd get when you are 10, stuff you'd get when you're 20 and subtle bits of content you'll appreciate only after you've played the game 10 times.

[Kinoko]

So from what I gather, you like to be constantly challenged by games. That's fine if so, but I don't. Sometimes I like a story sweet and simple. Sometimes it's nice to see characters set in a much simpler world without a lot of our problems and complications. Sometimes it's nice to have a story that makes you think of childhood again.

EDIT: I just want to make clear that the problem I have with you right now is your hardline stance, believing that what -you- like is what is right. "This kind of game design is crap." Not "I don't like that kind of game".

Plus, my story about the woman on the ship was different... my point about the fight with Tiger was the one I find to be good game design. It didn't feel like they had cut something out of the game, it felt like they had given me something extra.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Well, when Helm says a type of design is crap it's only his opinion, Kinoko.  He's certainly welcome to believe it's bad for x number of reasons, but someone else may like it for those same reasons.  I just happen to agree with him that rpgs that supply you with bogus interactivity can piss you off.  Why do something half-assed, I say; put your whole ass into it, or not at all.

[Kinoko]

But I used my -whole- ass.

[tygerbug]

  A Lucasarts-style adventure game needs a funny, witty, engaging and unusual main character, who says things that you don't expect, and does the exact things you do expect and want him/her to do.

  I liked the Lucasarts games because it was so much fun stepping into the shoes of Guybrush or Indiana Jones or Sam (and Max) or Bernard (and Laverne and Hoagie).

   Guybrush in SOMI was designed as a non-character, someone with no identity besides that he wanted to be a pirate, so that you could imprint your own "avatar" sensibility onto him, and that's great because he also definitely had a personality to the way he said things - or was in one scene unable to say things.

   By the time of LeChuck's Revenge, Guybrush was Guybrush - I didn't like that they had basically turned him into Indiana Jones, but I didn't mind playing that either, as Indy always had surprises up his sleeve too.


    Anyway, a simple "avatar" type main character doesn't work for me in an adventure game. Maybe they could seem just a simple "this is you, this is where you're going and what you're doing" at first, so that the player can get used to who they're playing, but so much of the joy of it is the character, and how he reacts to people and things and places.

[Helm]

I thought it went without saying that my opinion is just that. Well, I guess I shouldn't take any chances. So here it is: everything I say is just my opinion (sometimes even less that that), I hold no faith that others agree with me or that it in fact has any relevance to actuality, reality, truth or what-have-you.

[ManicMatt]

In that case, I'll clarify what I meant with morrowind.

You spend an absolute age just hitting little bugs on the ground which isn't very interesting at all. It takes ages to get to another village or place of interest.. but persisted I did, and my character gained experience and could fight bigger things and had increased his running speed. (Especially when I got these blinding boots of speed and combined them with an item that blocked the blind spell)

The game grew on me, and I became addicted, exploring every nook and cranny, and doing the shedloads of quests, and got past the games awful graphics. (Xbox version)
Well, it looked nice in -some- places. Like the water.


Ah yes, my mistake, dragon quest is turn based.. sorry I forgot it said that where I read about the game. I'm still going to buy it however..

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

(Especially when I got these blinding boots of speed and combined them with an item that blocked the blind spell)


Ha, good times.  I actually used the editor to upgrade those boots so I could jump a mile into the air to cross the large gulfs of water between quests .

[Ghormak]

Ah, Morrowind. Such a delightful game.

Once, very early in the game, I found a staff that provided levitating. I immediatly used it to float over the ghost wall to the middle of the island, into the volcano and the location where the final battle takes place.

I died.

Oh, and on topic, I don't really have much to say other than that I agree with Helm's points. Balancing the scales of opinion, I am!

[MillsJROSS]

I think that there are great games exhibiting strong characters and great games with characters your supposed to copy your personality on. With whatever option you choose, if it's done well, it will work. If it is not done well, it won't work. Either option is up to personal preference, but I've enjoyed games with both sets of characters.

I do think, though, that a stronger character might bring out more interesting puzzle solutions than a generic character. Since their solutions to the puzzles show who they are. Like how in Full Throttle, Ben is a lot more action oriented. He kicks and hits stuff to get things done, wheras a lot of blank characters might get the magic pixie dust, sprinkle it on a ball, do a jig, and the door will open. But like I said, I have no preference either.

-MillsJROSS

[Andail]

The most devastating moment in the game play is when you realise that a choice you made and thought was important, apparently made no difference whatsoever.
So, "fake" options are good and well until you detect their lack of consequence; then the entire game is rendered worthless.

This is why it's always better to construct your game simple and linear to start with, and then expand it if you get the time and possibility.

[Goldmund]

But there is a difference. You can hurt NPCs with being rude, even when the programmer didn't script their emotional system.
No single line of the code - but a big difference for the player.

EDIT:
Helm, would you like the 'fake option' better, if the scene went like that:
DO YOU WANT TO HELP HIM?
->NO
(the protagonist) - I think, ah... I just...
(the NPC) - Well?
(the protagonist) - Yes, of course I'll help you!

This would reveal much of the protagonist's psyche: he wants to say "NO", you act as his will at the moment, yet he agrees. Mmm?