Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
LET'S TALK PCS: AVATARS, VIEWPOINTS, AND CUSTOMIZATION
Posts
LightningLord2
230
LightningLord2
View playlists
Closeauthor=SatedAt the same time, it doesn't necessarily mean that you're not allowed to have those self-reflective themes when playing as a "good guy". One thing Undertale does really well is that it actually lets you experience the consequences for your actions and gets you to question your morals, regardless of whether you play as a killer or not, whereas in games like Skyrim you could murder a whole village and your only real penalty is a stat progression punishment that hardly affects the game as a whole.I don't understand why you need the game to punish you in order to question the morality of killing a whole village. Besides, Skyrim will force you to face the consequences, the consequences being a) guards in that hold will probably have a bounty on you and b) if they survive, relatives of the deceased can hire assassins and/or thugs to come after you. I'm also pretty sure that there isn't a stat progression penalty... unless it's a hidden property.
Emptying a village only spawns guards you can mow down easily, you get lots of easy loot, assassins are only limited in number, you get a bunch of combat skill levels and nobody outside that village will care. And you'll completely remove any guilt and reason to be pursued just by paying the guards a fine (which admittedly is pretty high at that point).
Fallout and Fable are even worse because you can just fullfill quests in the former and grind bandits or simply pick the good ending path in the latter to make people stop caring for your homicidal actions.
There are consequences to your actions in many open world RPGs, but they simply don't last.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
Hey guys can we keep the conversation to PC elements and not gameplay based around choices and the impact thereof? TIA
I wonder if anyone's done any kind of Rashomon deal with changing viewpoints like this? Might be something to look into, as an alternative to the now-cliche "YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE DOING GOOD THINGS BUT YOU WERE WROOOOONG!"
author=LockeZ
Surprisingly, JRPGs seem to only rarely use a changing viewpoint, even though it seems like such an obvious choice for them. FF6, FF13 and Suikoden 3 all did it pretty well, but when most other JRPGs change the player's viewpoint it's only for an short side-segment, and then we're back to the main character.
I wonder if anyone's done any kind of Rashomon deal with changing viewpoints like this? Might be something to look into, as an alternative to the now-cliche "YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE DOING GOOD THINGS BUT YOU WERE WROOOOONG!"
LightningLord2
230
author=Sooz
Hey guys can we keep the conversation to PC elements and not gameplay based around choices and the impact thereof? TIAauthor=LockeZ
Surprisingly, JRPGs seem to only rarely use a changing viewpoint, even though it seems like such an obvious choice for them. FF6, FF13 and Suikoden 3 all did it pretty well, but when most other JRPGs change the player's viewpoint it's only for an short side-segment, and then we're back to the main character.
I wonder if anyone's done any kind of Rashomon deal with changing viewpoints like this? Might be something to look into, as an alternative to the now-cliche "YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE DOING GOOD THINGS BUT YOU WERE WROOOOONG!"
Unless you literally kill everyone in Undertale, the game does not impose a particular viewpoint on you. You're literally just told to reflect on your actions and decide for yourself if it was the right thing.
I guess I can humor Sooz and get back a bit more toward the OP!
I like gameplay customization, as should be apparent in any of my projects. However, I don't think that this needs to come at the expense of narrative or characterization, so I don't think that it really affects any type of PC. There are plenty of ways to vary gameplay even within "the main character is a devout pacifist healer-type," after all.
I think that more defined characters are best for developing the best experiences, however. Maybe I'm just disillusioned with open worlds and personality in games despite them being the dreams of my childhood (how did I become "the guy who makes tiny dungeon crawls??"), but as more and more AAA games try to do it all and then are pretty tame, I find myself not caring for "design your own character." *yawns at fallout 4*
That's not to say that you can't just pick one of "open character" or "open world," though. Lightning Returns does a great job of having an open, living world with an extremely defined main character. Long Live the Queen lets you completely control Elodie, but in a fairly rigid story progression. (Things within each small arc can change, but each major plot point arrives no matter what... LLtQ is not a great game, but it's okay and is one of the few examples I can think of where you have an open-ended character but a very linear story. I think The Walking Dead did an amazing job with this, but I haven't played it?)
But the real question, of course, is whether or not these characters enhance the narrative and themes of the game. I don't think that a lot of open-ended characters really enhance the narrative, especially in something like Fire Emblem: Awakening where you're not even the main character.
....and i have to go but i'll finish this later!
edit: i'm back
I can't think of many, or even any, games that were both narrative-driven and had me make a character from scratch. As much as I like Dragon Age: Inquisition, Hawke from DA2 is far more memorable and enjoyable than my Inquisitor. (Also, it's weird never having my friends, a major part of the game, not ever use my name.) Too bad by then including a cardboard version of Hawke in DA:I, they ruined him for a lot of people (especially "I HATE BLOOD MAGIC" "but i played a blood mage" "I HATE IT"). They only had a few different versions of Hawke to deal with and they still fucked it up ;V
That's what it boils down to, for me: open characters don't allow for the grand experiences that I feel myself and other players expect. It's NOT the same as a tabletop RPG, and probably never will be. It's something that videogames just aren't meant to do within a reasonable budget and timeframe, so I wish it'd stop happening. BE BINARY GOODHOLY OR BADEVIL (that sounds like a DQ enemy name) on the back of the box is not appealing now that we're past 2005. I'm not normally one to say "you should stop trying" but... I can't think of many reasons to include an open-ended protagonist in an open-ended game (assuming it's narrative-driven; obviously it doesn't matter in sandbox games like Minecraft). My opinion is that games would be far better at telling their story if they didn't waste dev time on choices.
Which is weird, since the whole point of videogames over other mediums is that it is interactive and lets you have choices. This might be something I have to think on more.
Sooz
What do y'all think of these different types of PC? Are there games where you think one or another type works better? Do you have a particular preference in playing? In developing? TELL ME YOUR THOUGHTS.
I like gameplay customization, as should be apparent in any of my projects. However, I don't think that this needs to come at the expense of narrative or characterization, so I don't think that it really affects any type of PC. There are plenty of ways to vary gameplay even within "the main character is a devout pacifist healer-type," after all.
I think that more defined characters are best for developing the best experiences, however. Maybe I'm just disillusioned with open worlds and personality in games despite them being the dreams of my childhood (how did I become "the guy who makes tiny dungeon crawls??"), but as more and more AAA games try to do it all and then are pretty tame, I find myself not caring for "design your own character." *yawns at fallout 4*
That's not to say that you can't just pick one of "open character" or "open world," though. Lightning Returns does a great job of having an open, living world with an extremely defined main character. Long Live the Queen lets you completely control Elodie, but in a fairly rigid story progression. (Things within each small arc can change, but each major plot point arrives no matter what... LLtQ is not a great game, but it's okay and is one of the few examples I can think of where you have an open-ended character but a very linear story. I think The Walking Dead did an amazing job with this, but I haven't played it?)
But the real question, of course, is whether or not these characters enhance the narrative and themes of the game. I don't think that a lot of open-ended characters really enhance the narrative, especially in something like Fire Emblem: Awakening where you're not even the main character.
....and i have to go but i'll finish this later!
edit: i'm back
I can't think of many, or even any, games that were both narrative-driven and had me make a character from scratch. As much as I like Dragon Age: Inquisition, Hawke from DA2 is far more memorable and enjoyable than my Inquisitor. (Also, it's weird never having my friends, a major part of the game, not ever use my name.) Too bad by then including a cardboard version of Hawke in DA:I, they ruined him for a lot of people (especially "I HATE BLOOD MAGIC" "but i played a blood mage" "I HATE IT"). They only had a few different versions of Hawke to deal with and they still fucked it up ;V
That's what it boils down to, for me: open characters don't allow for the grand experiences that I feel myself and other players expect. It's NOT the same as a tabletop RPG, and probably never will be. It's something that videogames just aren't meant to do within a reasonable budget and timeframe, so I wish it'd stop happening. BE BINARY GOODHOLY OR BADEVIL (that sounds like a DQ enemy name) on the back of the box is not appealing now that we're past 2005. I'm not normally one to say "you should stop trying" but... I can't think of many reasons to include an open-ended protagonist in an open-ended game (assuming it's narrative-driven; obviously it doesn't matter in sandbox games like Minecraft). My opinion is that games would be far better at telling their story if they didn't waste dev time on choices.
Which is weird, since the whole point of videogames over other mediums is that it is interactive and lets you have choices. This might be something I have to think on more.
