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)
MAIN CHARACTER CHOICES VS. CONCRETE PERSONALITY
Posts
Pages:
1
Drakonais
2787
Drakonais
View playlists
CloseHey RMN, I'm at a crossroads here with a game design option that I thought might make an interesting topic for discussion. I'm trying to figure out whether to give players the option to develop the main character through dialogue choices.
I've planned a game with alternate endings, so the choices would have an impact on how particular scenes play out as well as the final ending of the game. However, I worry that I do this at the expense of creating a character with depth who has rational motivations for his words and actions.
For example, say the character gets insulted by an NPC. Choices could be 1.) Physically attack NPC 2.) Witty retort 3.) Apologize and walk away. If I've identified a main character as an even-tempered negotiator, it is totally inconsistent to give players the option to slug the guy in the face. Therefore, to leave that option on the table, I'd have to explicitly make no distinction about what kind of person my main character is, thus scaling back on his personal character development.
What do you value more when you play an RPG? The ability to control your player's words/actions and the outcome of the game, or a well-developed character driven by sound motives?
I've planned a game with alternate endings, so the choices would have an impact on how particular scenes play out as well as the final ending of the game. However, I worry that I do this at the expense of creating a character with depth who has rational motivations for his words and actions.
For example, say the character gets insulted by an NPC. Choices could be 1.) Physically attack NPC 2.) Witty retort 3.) Apologize and walk away. If I've identified a main character as an even-tempered negotiator, it is totally inconsistent to give players the option to slug the guy in the face. Therefore, to leave that option on the table, I'd have to explicitly make no distinction about what kind of person my main character is, thus scaling back on his personal character development.
What do you value more when you play an RPG? The ability to control your player's words/actions and the outcome of the game, or a well-developed character driven by sound motives?
Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? If you want to have a character with a concrete personality, just limit the choices to different things they would do or say. Not only does that prevent the player from derailing the character, but it also gives the player insight into the character's personality by letting them see the different approaches they consider to a given situation.
Shinan
4314
I prefer it when I get to choose my own actions. Sometimes a punch in the face is warranted but the designer might not know when. Of course the character will be completely defined by the player then.
If you sort of have a premade character you can of course make the options vague (similar to how they are in Mass Effect), where the choice is basically only subject matter or what kind of attitude will be had. So the "fuck off" option might be a milder insult that is in character.
You could also track choices with some kind of variable (again similar to what Mass Effect does with paragon/renegade) which could lead to certain options opening up or closing. So a character who has been mean all over simply won't be able to pick a good option when the time comes. (though again sometimes this is detrimental because if the player has created a character that is mean to everyone except x, then it'd be nice to be able to be nice to x and not be forced to be mean to x because I've been mean to everyone else)
It's a balancing act.
Of course a player-driven character will never have sound motives. Or will rarely have sound motives. I've often found in games when given a quest that "no! NO! NO! fuck that. I'll go gamble instead" would be the in-character response and not "Why of course I'll save your town from the end of the world."
If you sort of have a premade character you can of course make the options vague (similar to how they are in Mass Effect), where the choice is basically only subject matter or what kind of attitude will be had. So the "fuck off" option might be a milder insult that is in character.
You could also track choices with some kind of variable (again similar to what Mass Effect does with paragon/renegade) which could lead to certain options opening up or closing. So a character who has been mean all over simply won't be able to pick a good option when the time comes. (though again sometimes this is detrimental because if the player has created a character that is mean to everyone except x, then it'd be nice to be able to be nice to x and not be forced to be mean to x because I've been mean to everyone else)
It's a balancing act.
Of course a player-driven character will never have sound motives. Or will rarely have sound motives. I've often found in games when given a quest that "no! NO! NO! fuck that. I'll go gamble instead" would be the in-character response and not "Why of course I'll save your town from the end of the world."
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
I prefer games with main characters, rather than games where I am the main character. But it's not a hard preference. I can enjoy both, I just find that the former usually has better writing.
The theory behind letting the player be the main character is that they will connect with the story better. There's some logic behind this: they are making decisions themselves. They aren't just watching a character on screen choose to save the world, they're choosing to save it themselves. As a result, the game seems a lot more real. The player is invested in the story on a personal level that is unique to video games, and cannot be replicated in books or film.
However, personally, I find that whether or not I can adopt that mentality has nothing at all to do with whether the main character has his own personality or not. Sure, I feel that sense of personal investment in the story when I play Zelda: Twilight Princess or Chrono Trigger, but I also feel it when I play Final Fantasy 6 or Warcraft 3. And I definitely don't feel it when I play Knights of the Old Republic or Dragon Age: Origins, even though those are great games.
What triggers the feeling for me isn't that I feel like the main character represents me. What triggers the feeling for me is that I feel like my actions in the game were important.
In Chrono Trigger, Crono is *barely* a silent protagonist - he makes all sorts of gestures, while Lucca and Marle speak for him and exclaim that the three of them are going to save the world. But over the course of the game, I, as the player, travel through time and bring peace to the middle ages, become deeply attached to Frog's plight, bring a glimmer of hope to the horrible state of affairs in the future, and ensure the survival of the human race in the jurassic age. At the end of that sequence of events, I feel attached to the world. I've built this world - I've travelled through time and undertaken impossible ordeals to ensure its survival - and yet this alien beast is still bursting from the ground, destroying all of civilization, destroying everything I worked for!? Fuck that! I worked too hard for that! I'm going to KICK LAVOS'S GIANT SPIKY ASS.
In Final Fantasy 6, a similar thing happens. But FF6 constantly has you playing as lots of different characters. Terra, ostensibly the main character, isn't even *allowed* to be on your team for half of the game, and is optional for much of the rest. But that doesn't stop me from getting attached to the people and the world. It doesn't matter that Sabin and Cyan were the ones who fought a losing battle in Doma, while Locke was the one who rescued Celes in South Figaro. To me, those are both things that *I* did. And so they matter to me. And when Locke doubts Celes and she leaves the team, I'm heartbroken, and when the people of Doma pass on to the afterlife, it hits home, because that was my family.
However, not every game's events reach me to such an extent. Sometimes the events are very moving and very well done, but I feel no differently than if I'd seen them in a movie. When I play Final Fantasy 13, I adore Lightning as a main character, I love all the characters except for Hope, I think the story and pacing and writing are amazing, but I don't really feel that their plight is my own. Everything important that happens is a cut scene. I'm not given objectives to perform - I'm just given a destination, and the characters do some unexpected thing when I get there. There's something that triggers inside my brain when I'm the one doing the important tasks, and as a result I feel much more involved in the story. FF13 is a fantastic game with a fantastic story that's presented in an extremely innovative and dynamic way, but by and large, it doesn't trigger that personal response.
The theory behind letting the player be the main character is that they will connect with the story better. There's some logic behind this: they are making decisions themselves. They aren't just watching a character on screen choose to save the world, they're choosing to save it themselves. As a result, the game seems a lot more real. The player is invested in the story on a personal level that is unique to video games, and cannot be replicated in books or film.
However, personally, I find that whether or not I can adopt that mentality has nothing at all to do with whether the main character has his own personality or not. Sure, I feel that sense of personal investment in the story when I play Zelda: Twilight Princess or Chrono Trigger, but I also feel it when I play Final Fantasy 6 or Warcraft 3. And I definitely don't feel it when I play Knights of the Old Republic or Dragon Age: Origins, even though those are great games.
What triggers the feeling for me isn't that I feel like the main character represents me. What triggers the feeling for me is that I feel like my actions in the game were important.
In Chrono Trigger, Crono is *barely* a silent protagonist - he makes all sorts of gestures, while Lucca and Marle speak for him and exclaim that the three of them are going to save the world. But over the course of the game, I, as the player, travel through time and bring peace to the middle ages, become deeply attached to Frog's plight, bring a glimmer of hope to the horrible state of affairs in the future, and ensure the survival of the human race in the jurassic age. At the end of that sequence of events, I feel attached to the world. I've built this world - I've travelled through time and undertaken impossible ordeals to ensure its survival - and yet this alien beast is still bursting from the ground, destroying all of civilization, destroying everything I worked for!? Fuck that! I worked too hard for that! I'm going to KICK LAVOS'S GIANT SPIKY ASS.
In Final Fantasy 6, a similar thing happens. But FF6 constantly has you playing as lots of different characters. Terra, ostensibly the main character, isn't even *allowed* to be on your team for half of the game, and is optional for much of the rest. But that doesn't stop me from getting attached to the people and the world. It doesn't matter that Sabin and Cyan were the ones who fought a losing battle in Doma, while Locke was the one who rescued Celes in South Figaro. To me, those are both things that *I* did. And so they matter to me. And when Locke doubts Celes and she leaves the team, I'm heartbroken, and when the people of Doma pass on to the afterlife, it hits home, because that was my family.
However, not every game's events reach me to such an extent. Sometimes the events are very moving and very well done, but I feel no differently than if I'd seen them in a movie. When I play Final Fantasy 13, I adore Lightning as a main character, I love all the characters except for Hope, I think the story and pacing and writing are amazing, but I don't really feel that their plight is my own. Everything important that happens is a cut scene. I'm not given objectives to perform - I'm just given a destination, and the characters do some unexpected thing when I get there. There's something that triggers inside my brain when I'm the one doing the important tasks, and as a result I feel much more involved in the story. FF13 is a fantastic game with a fantastic story that's presented in an extremely innovative and dynamic way, but by and large, it doesn't trigger that personal response.
Drakonais
2787
I'm not sure I understand. I've played FF6 so I get where you're coming from there, but I don't really understand what you mean when you say FFXIII didn't do the same despite its fantastic plot/characters/gameplay, though I haven't played it yet.
Do you know why you didn't connect with it as strongly? And didn't FF6 have a (more or less) linear plot strung together by (albeit pixelated) cutscenes?
As for the personal dilemma, I'm thinking I'll go with the more consistent direction, maybe with a few small options here and there.
Do you know why you didn't connect with it as strongly? And didn't FF6 have a (more or less) linear plot strung together by (albeit pixelated) cutscenes?
As for the personal dilemma, I'm thinking I'll go with the more consistent direction, maybe with a few small options here and there.
Irili
3198
If you do decide on allowing the player to decide the actions and personality of the character, then please don't make your character a "silent protagonist". I know there would be more work involved, but having the character's speech as well as actions change throughout the story would be interesting.
I not that I don't mind playing as the silent protagonist, I just like to see a little variety is all.
I not that I don't mind playing as the silent protagonist, I just like to see a little variety is all.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Yeah, that's kind of my point, the linearity of the game has no effect on whether I feel like my actions are my own. What matters is that I performed them myself and saw the results.
In FF6, when you fight to save Doma, you control Cyan running through the courtyard and hunting down each soldier and challenging the enemy commander, those are actions you as the player input and direct the character to do. The dialogue is all done in cut scenes and maybe a few actions are, but for the most part you are told "save the king!" and then you have to walk to the king and find him dying, and then you have to walk to your living quarters and find your wife and son dead.
In FF13, by contrast, when you travel through any given area, you are just given a yellow dot on your map that you have to travel to. When you get to it, a cut scene occurs, and you get another yellow dot. The cut scenes are entirely automated - the only time you have control of the characters is when exploring enemy-filled dungeons. And you aren't told what's at the yellow dot. You often aren't given any sort of goal or reason to get there other than "we have to keep moving, and there's only one path." If I were told that Sazh's son is held captive in Nautilus and I have to save him, I would scour through the park looking for him and feel like I had a purpose. When I found him, I would feel like I'd accomplished something. But instead, he just shows up. The fact that I found him doesn't feel like it's something I did, because I didn't know I was doing it until after it was done. I didn't accomplish anything. Sure, Sazh did, but I didn't. And that doesn't even address the fact that a third of the game's cut scenes are flashbacks. Don't get me wrong, the flashbacks are a much better method of storytelling in this case than if the game had been presented linearly. The game starts where the fighting starts, while countless flashbacks span the two weeks prior to the start of the game. I wouldn't want the game to start at the beginning of the story. But I wish more of the flashbacks were somehow playable. I feel like it's just telling a story about these characters, instead of involving me in the story.
tl;dr: the difference is that when a character does something, it can be in a cut scene, it can be totally linear, but I want to lead the character to do it. Even if I only have one option, I want to be told "Press the A button to save the king!" instead of just watching the character save him without my input.
In FF6, when you fight to save Doma, you control Cyan running through the courtyard and hunting down each soldier and challenging the enemy commander, those are actions you as the player input and direct the character to do. The dialogue is all done in cut scenes and maybe a few actions are, but for the most part you are told "save the king!" and then you have to walk to the king and find him dying, and then you have to walk to your living quarters and find your wife and son dead.
In FF13, by contrast, when you travel through any given area, you are just given a yellow dot on your map that you have to travel to. When you get to it, a cut scene occurs, and you get another yellow dot. The cut scenes are entirely automated - the only time you have control of the characters is when exploring enemy-filled dungeons. And you aren't told what's at the yellow dot. You often aren't given any sort of goal or reason to get there other than "we have to keep moving, and there's only one path." If I were told that Sazh's son is held captive in Nautilus and I have to save him, I would scour through the park looking for him and feel like I had a purpose. When I found him, I would feel like I'd accomplished something. But instead, he just shows up. The fact that I found him doesn't feel like it's something I did, because I didn't know I was doing it until after it was done. I didn't accomplish anything. Sure, Sazh did, but I didn't. And that doesn't even address the fact that a third of the game's cut scenes are flashbacks. Don't get me wrong, the flashbacks are a much better method of storytelling in this case than if the game had been presented linearly. The game starts where the fighting starts, while countless flashbacks span the two weeks prior to the start of the game. I wouldn't want the game to start at the beginning of the story. But I wish more of the flashbacks were somehow playable. I feel like it's just telling a story about these characters, instead of involving me in the story.
tl;dr: the difference is that when a character does something, it can be in a cut scene, it can be totally linear, but I want to lead the character to do it. Even if I only have one option, I want to be told "Press the A button to save the king!" instead of just watching the character save him without my input.
I agree these things are mutually exclusive. And well, there's no right choice. It depends on the type of game you're making. If you really want to work on your main character development, his personality etc, giving the player important choices about his actions is probably not a good idea.
Giving the player such choices won't necessarily make the character personality-less, but will have to make him more... generic, and easy to sympathize with.
Giving the player such choices won't necessarily make the character personality-less, but will have to make him more... generic, and easy to sympathize with.
It's a lot easier to create a single, solid story where the main character has no choices - or has choices that are meaningless and largely don't affect the story. If you've ever played Golden Sun, the game allows you to answer questions like "Will you help me?" but even if you say no, your party will just say, "Of course we will! Isaac, quit being a dick."
With a game like Dragon Age where every choice is meaningful, the story feels less important. I didn't feel nearly as connected with the plot in Dragon Age - part of that was the "go wherever you want first" dealie-o. It's also a HELL of a lot harder to build a sturdy story when your player has the option to dick around in the forest or something instead of going to the castle.
That being said, the project I'm working on right now completely revolves around choice while trying to hold a narrative together and you need quite a few tricks. You can save all your teammates and bring them to the final boss, let them all die and face him alone, seduce different chicks, stop an assassin, take a bribe from the assassin, rough up a businessman, etcetera. I planned the game to be 1-2 hours long so that the results of your choices aren't terribly hard to calculate, but considering at least half the cast can end up dead, there is a lot of variation in the story . I can only imagine the headache Bioware has when they try and pull that crap.
With a game like Dragon Age where every choice is meaningful, the story feels less important. I didn't feel nearly as connected with the plot in Dragon Age - part of that was the "go wherever you want first" dealie-o. It's also a HELL of a lot harder to build a sturdy story when your player has the option to dick around in the forest or something instead of going to the castle.
That being said, the project I'm working on right now completely revolves around choice while trying to hold a narrative together and you need quite a few tricks. You can save all your teammates and bring them to the final boss, let them all die and face him alone, seduce different chicks, stop an assassin, take a bribe from the assassin, rough up a businessman, etcetera. I planned the game to be 1-2 hours long so that the results of your choices aren't terribly hard to calculate, but considering at least half the cast can end up dead, there is a lot of variation in the story . I can only imagine the headache Bioware has when they try and pull that crap.
Hoddmimir
200
You could try a semi-combination of the two styles. Make your character a set character. Personality, outlooks, goals, whatever. Build a character. Then present the player with choices that both fit that characters outlook. Somebody mentioned Mass Effect. I think this has an example of the kind of choice I am talking about. At one part you need to choose who to save and it is strongly suggested that whoever you don't choose IS going to die. So obviously there is not a right choice. There is not a choice that best fits your character. I think giving the player those choices might make it feel more like they are in control, help them get more attached to the main hero and the other characters, but still not force you to generalize your main character too much.
Maybe the hero has to search for the villain. He can start by searching in the forest or in the mountains or in the city of despair. What the player doesn't realize is that the villain will be at each of those 3 locations so he will have the final battle no matter what his choice is. Nevertheless he chose where to look and he found the villain. Something like that.
Maybe the hero has to search for the villain. He can start by searching in the forest or in the mountains or in the city of despair. What the player doesn't realize is that the villain will be at each of those 3 locations so he will have the final battle no matter what his choice is. Nevertheless he chose where to look and he found the villain. Something like that.
I agree with all the above statements suggesting a middle ground. Offer options, but within the character's personality. You don't need to have three TOTALLY separate options - read up on Persona 3 and Persona 4 social links. VERY often you are given a set of choices that appear to be more or less the same response, but different characters respond to different attitudes. For example, everybody thinks being nice is the default best choice, right? Yukiko will get embarassed if you're TOO nice to her. Ai will get mad and say you're being fake if you're understanding about her being such a bitch. Etc. Just set different flavors of the same mood, instead of three wildly differing moods, as your options.
Alex898
572
One thing I think would be possible would be to use a variable to see what kind of choices the player picks, and if they pick aggressive choices make the character aggressive. Make the choices even more and more aggressive as the game goes on, and vice versa, so the player can choose their personality. Of course this takes more work and could be hard if you already have defined the character in one way.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Alex: That's similar to how the light side/dark side meter works in KotOR games, and how good/evil or law/chaos meters work in other games. A lot of the time you're given free choices, but in some cases characters will respond to you purely based on the choices you've made earlier in the game. Your idea of actually locking out some of the light-side choices if you've made too many dark-side choices in the past is interesting, though. But I'm not sure it really makes sense. If you're giving the player the choice of how to act in every situation, and the player wants to start acting differently, what logic is there in preventing them from doing so? What purpose? If the player has a change of heart, then I don't see why the character wouldn't be allowed to also. This actually sounds like it would break immersion for me far more than either of the "normal" methods. So my knee-jerk reaction is that it's the worst of both worlds, but I'm interested to hear if you were thinking of any advantages of that method.
Yoshio
774
author=Sailerius
Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? If you want to have a character with a concrete personality, just limit the choices to different things they would do or say. Not only does that prevent the player from derailing the character, but it also gives the player insight into the character's personality by letting them see the different approaches they consider to a given situation.
thisthisthisthisthisthis
i love choice system games but one thing that always bothered me about them were the ridiculous extremes of the options it's either something jesus would do or "i kill you dead"
better to make a personality for your character and let the player choose from the multiple actions the main character would consider in that situation given who the main character is
Alex898
572
author=LockeZ
Alex: That's similar to how the light side/dark side meter works in KotOR games, and how good/evil or law/chaos meters work in other games. A lot of the time you're given free choices, but in some cases characters will respond to you purely based on the choices you've made earlier in the game. Your idea of actually locking out some of the light-side choices if you've made too many dark-side choices in the past is interesting, though. But I'm not sure it really makes sense. If you're giving the player the choice of how to act in every situation, and the player wants to start acting differently, what logic is there in preventing them from doing so? What purpose? If the player has a change of heart, then I don't see why the character wouldn't be allowed to also. This actually sounds like it would break immersion for me far more than either of the "normal" methods. So my knee-jerk reaction is that it's the worst of both worlds, but I'm interested to hear if you were thinking of any advantages of that method.
Well perhaps have a few 'anchor' scenes in the game that can determine your characters personality so the people can change their characters ways later in the game if they desire.
Example: Someone kills his friend, but it was because his friend wronged him in some way (robbery, etc.). This can really go either way: Your character kills the guy for revenge (evil), or sees the path his friend chose led to his downfall and the player can choose to spare the killer good), which would alter the choices the character has after this event in the way they chose.
I was thinking for my next RPG Maker game doing something like that, sort of a combination of 'well defined character' and 'player choice'.
Pages:
1
