Single-player games shouldn't have create-a-character features

[someguy1231]

I've been playing through the Witcher 3, and just recently realized why I love it so much: I don't play as Generic Player Creation #903 in this game, I play as Geralt of Rivia.

To elaborate, in single-player games where the player creates their own character, it's almost always very obvious that the world was designed in such a way to revolve around them. They're "the Chosen One" or "the only one who can save the world", everyone they meet treats them reverentially, and nothing ever gets done until the player does it. Bioware's (and to lesser extent, Bethesda's) RPGs are the most guilty of this, IMO.

This also leads to frequent immersion-breaking. For obvious reasons, NPCs can never refer to the player by name, and usually not even by gender. In Knights of the Old Republic

Spoiler

I actually saw the "big plot twist" coming very early on because of this.

They always refer to me vaguely, like "Hero" or "Champion". This ties into my earlier complaint of the world revolving around me.

What I love about the Witcher games is that I feel like I'm part of the world, not that the world revolves around me. Playing as a specific character is a big reason for this. Characters I meet won't hesitate to disrespect me if they think I'm beneath them, and even my allies won't hesitate to argue with me or disagree with me. Though Geralt can have a big affect on the world, he's hardly the generic "Chosen One saves the World" we see too often in single-player RPGs. Even other characters calling me "Geralt" instead of a generic title felt very refreshing.

Obviously, in multiplayer games (especially MMOs), such character creation is pretty much required, and indeed is a big reason for those game's appeal. Then again, multiplayer games are built from the ground up to be worlds inhabited by multiple players at once, so immersion is usually not as much of a problem.

Granted, some single-player games handle this better than others (Skyrim is probably the closest a game like this has come to "acceptable" to me), but playing the Witcher 3 has shown me how much better single-player games are when you're playing a specific character.

 

[tippy2k2]

Bioware seems to have nailed it pretty well with the introduction of surnames (Hawke, Shepard, etc).

I guess my main question is why does the appearance of the character matter? In your very own example, "Characters I meet won't hesitate to disrespect me/my allies won't hesitate to argue with me" can easily be done with a created character. Your character is constantly disrespected in Mass Effect 1 as humans are not good enough to be part of the council/become a Spectre and your allies can go against you in many ways in Bioware games (like Anders in Dragon Age 2).

Everything you're arguing is based on the character, not the appearance of the character. Geralt could have just as easily been a "Chosen One" but CD Projekt Red chose to make him differently. A shitty character or shitty writing is going to be shitty whether it's Tippy2k2's Commander Shepard or Commander Geralt Shepard the studio created character.

 

[MysticSlayer]

I fail to see how you get straight from create-a-character to "world revolves around character" as if they are the same thing. They hardly are, and there are plenty of games that have a set protagonist in which the world completely revolves around them, sometimes to a laughably overblown degree (e.g. Half-Life 2, all Legend of Zelda games, etc.) Games like The Witcher and STALKER could have accomplished what they did with create-a-character systems just like a Bethesda RPG could still be just as player-centric with a set protagonist.

Really, what you should be asking for is less player-centric writing, not the removal of a feature that aids in the role playing of, well, role-playing games, and can be used for fun in other genres.

 

[someguy1231]

Bioware seems to have nailed it pretty well with the introduction of surnames (Hawke, Shepard, etc).

Actually, that just made the problem worse for me. There's no given name generic enough that it can encompass the entire human race. Besides, in the end those surnames just got used for the same purpose as vague titles anyway. The game still couldn't refer to the player's gender, so I got clunky and unnatural-sounding dialogue that used the word "Shepard" everywhere a "him" or "her" would've been far more appropriate.

I guess my main question is why does the appearance of the character matter? In your very own example, "Characters I meet won't hesitate to disrespect me/my allies won't hesitate to argue with me" can easily be done with a created character. Your character is constantly disrespected in Mass Effect 1 as humans are not good enough to be part of the council/become a Spectre and your allies can go against you in many ways in Bioware games (like Anders in Dragon Age 2).

Everything you're arguing is based on the character, not the appearance of the character. Geralt could have just as easily been a "Chosen One" but CD Projekt Red chose to make him differently. A shitty character or shitty writing is going to be shitty whether it's Tippy2k2's Commander Shepard or Commander Geralt Shepard the studio created character.

Of course this can be a problem for created and non-created characters. I was just arguing that, due to the very nature of created characters, this is far more likely to be a problem for them. I've played all the Mass Effect games and the first and third Dragon Age games, and the degree to which the whole world and your own companions bow to you is just embarrassing. It's not a concrete link, but it's very strong, from my experience. I have yet to play a single-player game with a created character where this wasn't a problem for me. Create-a-character and excessive player-centricism seem to go hand-in-hand.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

My Commander Shepard strongly disagrees. I spent a great deal of time getting her to look how I wanted her to look, even though I knew no one else would ever see her. It's what made her mine, and not another player's creation.

 

[SmallHatLogan]

I disagree. I find being shoehorned into a particular character kills the role playing aspect for me. I also don't view my character as "Generic Player Creation #903", it's my own unique character.

Even something like Mass Effect where role playing is fairly limited (you're either Commander Hugs, Commander Neutral, or Commander Dickhead) that fact that I can make my own version of Shepard (in terms of looks) made me care a lot more about her. If I had to play as Commander Generic Marine who appears on the box art I wouldn't have been as in to the games as I was.

As for the issue of characters being "The Chosen One" that's definitely not an issue that all games with created characters face, nor is it exclusive to those games.

 

[Lufia Erim]

I agree. Especially since the character usually comes with their own back story and personality and quirks. It makes me more engaged in the character and the world around him.

 

[The Madman]

Nah, as much as I love Witcher 3 and enjoy a solid story with an established characters, I can definitely see there being plenty of room in the genre for player created characters as well. And while sometimes yes, it's done badly and has a negative effect on the plot, it can be done well also.

Take for example Kotor 2 which has an excellent story and a protagonist who despite being player made feels like an actual character in the world. Throughout the story you're allowed to choose 'The Exiles' background as it is recounted to others, their hopes and dreams, and that helps make them feel like a real part of that world. It's cleverly done and I think that being able to actively shape what this character is like both physically and mentally helps the games story immensely.

My Commander Shepard strongly disagrees. I spent a great deal of time getting her to look how I wanted her to look, even though I knew no one else would ever see her. It's what made her mine, and not another player's creation.

As much as I like the ME series, and I really do, my biggest problem with Mass Effect is that unlike Kotor 2 you're rarely given a chance to really roleplay a character aside from paragon/renegade dialogue options. A 'good' Shepard is going to be the exact same as any other good Shepard save for what they look like and potentially who they romanced, you can tweak their backgrounds in the first game but that's about the extent of personalizing their actual story and personality goes. By contrast in, say, Pillars of Eternity I can play a character who is an ex-soldier trying to do redeem themselves and be honorable but who is still slow to trust and cynical. Two characters who follow the same path can be different and be given different motivations, Mass Effect doesn't really allow you to do that and suffers for it.

I really wish Bioware had made it so that stuff like the nightmares in 3 were affected by your dialogue options and choices throughout the game. Make it so that Shepard might have nightmares if through dialogue you expressed regret, while a renegade Shep being roleplayed as a pragmatic soldier might sleep soundly. A simple thing like that could have gone a long way to dismissing my complaint with the series.

It's mostly just fluff but it's fluff I've always felt matters in an rpg. In the end I felt attached to my Commander Shepard, but I can't help but feel a lot of that comes more from me just projecting onto the character as opposed to any writing on Bioware's part.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Honestly if I want the best stories I go for other media, books and film. In a game I want to choose how I effect the world and mold it through gameplay mechanics.

What happens if I dont want to be Geralt in the Witcher 3, I havent played it but is it like New Vegas where I can decide to kill everyone and seize power for myself, and also choose whether my characters motivation to do so comes from a place of not believing any faction ideal for the wasteland, or from a place of pure lust for power?

 

[WolfThomas]

Bioware seems to have nailed it pretty well with the introduction of surnames (Hawke, Shepard, etc).

With DAI I don't know why they didn't just go the whole hog and give you a set first and last name depending on origin.

They already had some pre-sets for example Maxwell or Evelyn Trevalyan. Then Varric could give you a nickanme like "Maxie" or "Evie" which you could approve or disapprove of. It'd be more immersersive that way.

 

[MysticSlayer]

Create-a-character and excessive player-centricism seem to go hand-in-hand.

Video games and player-centrism go hand-in-hand. One of the ways games like The Witcher and, to an even greater extent STALKER, is in how comparatively insignificant their player characters are to other games' player characters. You can't really contribute all of this to a single feature when a vast majority of games, regardless of whether or not they have that feature, have very player-centric writing.

 

[Ten Foot Bunny]

I'm not trying to stir up any shit-storms here, but if it wasn't for character creation, I'd almost never get to play as a female. That's something I kind of enjoy. Even the most basic character creators - like that in Sunset Overdrive - can make a world of difference in how immersed I can get in a game.

 

[Asclepion]

Totally agree. Also, character creators are crummy. Always. The developers have far better tools with which to make attractive, distinctive characters. User created characters also tend to emote less and be less animate.

I've found the opposite. User created characters can fucking eat the developers alive when it comes to physical beauty. Compare modded characters in Elder Scrolls games to vanilla, or facegens from the online Mass Effect faces database to the defaults.

 

[The Madman]

I'm not trying to stir up any shit-storms here, but if it wasn't for character creation, I'd almost never get to play as a female. That's something I kind of enjoy. Even the most basic character creators - like that in Sunset Overdrive - can make a world of difference in how immersed I can get in a game.

This is an annoyingly fair point.

Plus some games are just better with character creation, not even strictly rpg. Saints Row is a great example of a series with a malleable protagonist that works great because of it. Hell, trying out the different voice actors for 'The Boss' in Saints Row 3 and 4 was a selling point. Female Voice 1 was best as everyone knows, but still zombie Boss and Nolan North were pretty awesome as is Jason Statham wannabe voice.

 

[shrekfan246]

If you don't like games with player-created characters, then just don't play those games. Don't try to poo-poo on the rest of the world by claiming your personal preference is somehow a magical salve that will fix the problem of awful writing in video games. Plenty of games with set protagonists have horrifically bad stories, especially re: "world revolves around the player character". As has been mentioned, by their very nature video games are player-centric. With very few exceptions, they're focused on telling the story of the player character, not the story of some guy the player character occasionally sees or follows around.

Also, the reason I enjoyed Saints Row so much was because of how extensively I could tweak my character to my liking. A few instances of "the Boss" rather than gendered pronouns in dialogue isn't going to sap away the enjoyment I get from seeing The Joker doing wacky shit around Stilwater and Steelport. Sorry if that flies completely contrary to how you feel.

 

[Chaos Isaac]

My idiots on Dragon's Dogma would disagree. Because, you know. It was cool.

Also, Geralt is like... So boring. I really dislike this character. Which isn't fair, since i've only played 2, but man. It turned me off so bad. Which is kind of the worst. A game can be awesome, but I can walk away from it hating it due to the characters. Especially if my character is a asshat. (Like, Geralt, or, the dude from Tales of Graces f, or Aiden Pierce, or Travis from GTA V.) Where they're pretty much deal breakers depending on who you are.

Meanwhile if I make my own character, I can kinda play around with who is and how he responds. Sure, I never speak, but I sure can imagine that every interaction I am a complete idiot and people just kinda tolerate him. Or, i'm whatever shade of whatever you wanna be. Like non-stop innuendos. And again, that's just all ignored for the sake of trying to get things done. Then again, a lot of people can be more attached to someone after they make them. And games like Dark Souls where the world has the story and /you/ per say aren't anything special, are probably better off without having some set dude.

Also. I find it funny you say that when Geralt is so super special awesome, like, every hot chick wants to lay you, you know the most powerful thing in creation, and everyone important is basically on a first name basis with you.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I think name characters only really matter if the game's story revolves around them.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

While I absolutely detest the chosen one narrative due to how over used it is, I don't think there's a one size fits all solution to character creation. Some games do benefit from a well defined character, others I think are better off with a blank-slate avatar of the player's own creation.

Also, it seems kind of strange that you pick the Witcher 3 as an example to contrast with "the chosen one". While I too absolutely loved the Witcher 3, Ciri is basically "the chosen one", and your relation to her makes it only a hair's width away from you being the only one who can save the world.