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

[kasperbbs]

Thats not the character creators fault, the game was designed and written that way. I'm pretty sure that the Witcher would also have character creation if it wasn't based on a book. And if the main character was just some random peasant without any extraordinary talents or abilities then he would be just another peasant watching at events unfold from the sidelines ignored by everyone of importance.

 

[DerangedHobo]

...Why can't you have both?

If we're talking about Geralt here, the fact that his entire view of the world is defined by the actions of the player devalues him as a character in my eyes. He is not in control, I am. The more choice you give to a player with a pre-defined character, the less that character is, he lacks agency and control, Geralt might as well be customized to hell and back.

 

[stroopwafel]

Yeah, I think the fact that Witcher 3 has a set protagonist is definitely in the game's favor. It opens up way more story possibilities that the writers of this game make good use of. One of the reasons why I normally don't like RPGs is that the stories in these games bore me to tears but the story in Witcher 3 is just really good. The quality of the writing is obviously responsible for that but without the interaction with Geralt most of it would simply fall apart. Most RPGs just have info dumps in terms of NPC dialogues and other kinds of player addressed story expostions that all just feel very static(strangely the opposite of what they are trying to go for), whereas Witcher 3 has various storylines waving together in smart ways giving the whole a more authentic and 'organic' feel. In Witcher 3 I didn't feel 'the hero' or 'the chosen one'or the character this world was created for but rather just..the witcher. Things go to shit, events resolve in unsatisfying ways and Geralt can not always be the savior. And you can still give Geralt a personal spin depending on some of the dialogue choices you can make, which I think are often more impactful than RPGs with character creation.

So yeah, Witcher 3 is defintely leaps and bounds beyond any other (traditional)RPG I played. And that is definitely in no small part thanks to the game having a set character.

 

[Gearhead mk2]

I think character creators are an inherently flawed prospect, because no matter how extensive you make them you'll never have one detailed enough to fit EVERYONE playing your game. But I enjoy them when they do show up. Messing around with customisation is one of my favourite things to do in games, and I like playing as a girl most of the time. The best games for character creation are ones like Saints Row which let you take a persona in an insane world, or ones like Dark Souls where the focus isn't on the character you made. As for creator VS premade, it varies from game to game. Stuff like Kid Icarus Uprising and Metal Gear would be much lesser without their pre-defined characters.

Personally, what I would really like is a game where you have a fully customisable character (appearance, gender, race, abilities, maybe backstory and voice) but that character was the sidekick to the true hero of the story. The player gets to leave a major mark on the world but the story is still tight and focused. Fire Emblem Awakening did that in its first half, and I loved it.

 

[stroopwafel]

The best games for character creation are ones like Saints Row which let you take a persona in an insane world, or ones like Dark Souls where the focus isn't on the character you made. As for creator VS premade, it varies from game to game. Stuff like Kid Icarus Uprising and Metal Gear would be much lesser without their pre-defined characters.

Yeah, I think Dark Souls(or any other game in that lineage) solves the 'problem' of character creation most elegantly by having a 'story puzzle' that you need to piece together on your own, with very minimalist exposition. It's one of the reasons why the story is so good in these games. They are written incredibly well but are shrouded in mystery and ambiguity and are amplified by meticulous world design and treat the player-character like just another nuisance. Though imagine a long-winded Metal Gear game without a set character.

I think that's one of the flaws developers make when creating a story for an open-world game without a set protagonist; they write a 'traditional' story told in a traditional narrative but leave the most important little detail out: the protagonist. Who's a mute that can only make superficial dialogue options that don't impact the story(a mostly arbitrary mess) in any meaningful way.

I see traditional RPGs with character creation maybe having an appeal to those who like to roleplay and pretend in a videogame but if you leave any player imagination out these games just don't produce really good stories.

 

[BakaSmurf]

Name one game, RPG or not, where the player-controlled character isn't the one who gets all the shit done...

The Lord of the Rings: The Third Age.

Incidentally it's also a perfect example of why most people don't want to be the fucks that ineffectually follow the heroes around feeding off of their table scraps. There was zero reason for that game to exist or for any body to play it. Zero.

 

[Something Amyss]

I think there's room for both styles. In GTA 5 for instance, you get three great characters, then you ALSO get to make your own to "live".

Just one question: I've 100%ed the offline game. When do I unlock the great characters?

 

[ObserverStatus]

AKA. "I suck at role playing so I think role playing games should be dumbed down and simplified so I can enjoy them more."

The same line of thinking that leads delusional fools to think Fallout 3 was better than New Vegas.

Pretty much, the ones who are always complaining about the silent protagonist not having a personality just aren't creative enough to give their character one.

 

[Bat Vader]

PS: I think most of what you are worried about comes from the fact that video game writers can't write worth a damn. It doesn't matter if you give them a set character or a player made one. They can't write either and just fumble around, unable to characterize anyone properly.

This is why I think they need to start hiring actual authors. I would love to see Neil Gaiman be hired as a writer for a game.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

PS: I think most of what you are worried about comes from the fact that video game writers can't write worth a damn. It doesn't matter if you give them a set character or a player made one. They can't write either and just fumble around, unable to characterize anyone properly.

This is why I think they need to start hiring actual authors. I would love to see Neil Gaiman be hired as a writer for a game.

Don't tempt me with such a thing!

 

[Zhukov]

AKA. "I suck at role playing so I think role playing games should be dumbed down and simplified so I can enjoy them more."

Pretty much, the ones who are always complaining about the silent protagonist not having a personality just aren't creative enough to give their character one.

I disagree.

The problem is that the world and characters can't react to free-form roleplaying in any way that they are not pre-programmed to do. Video games don't have any equivalent to a game master to adapt events in a meaningful way to the players non-scripted decisions.

For example, I recently tried to make a character in Skyrim who was a religious zealot. I slavishly helped out adherents to my deity of choice while systematically killing the priests of rival religions and vandalizing their temples. But that's all I could do. I could act but the game could not react. No interesting story could come about as a result. The rival religions couldn't take steps against my one-man crusade. My religion of choice couldn't cast me out as an extremist who was blackening their good name.

I also decided that my character would have a fascination with macabre things. So I filled my home with a collection of curious artifacts. I filled my shelves with books concerning demons or stories written by madmen. But, once again, that's all I could do. The game couldn't react to something that specific. My house carl couldn't quit her job because she was sick of working in a house full of creepy shit. Visitors couldn't browse my bookshelves and start asking uncomfortable questions about my character's bizarre choice in books. The locals couldn't organize a posse to run me out of town once rumours of my proclivities started to spread.

"Make your own story" is bullshit. The story is only ever going to exist in the player's head and it's always going to be a shit story because it cannot have the slightest impact on the rest of the setting or the characters therein. In which case they might as well just write the story themselves and actually make something worth a damn.

Single player games are a poor avenue for role-playing. It's just the nature of the beast. If that's what one is looking for then one would be better served by tabletop games or, if one can find the right community, by multiplayer games.

 

[Chaos Isaac]

The story is only ever going to exist in the player's head and it's always going to be a shit story because it cannot have the slightest impact on the rest of the setting or the characters therein.

My head canon will always be the best. Will the games always reflect? No. But they don't really need to, they just need to give me the opportunity. There is plenty of ways to have fun with that, in a childishly gleeful way.

 

[Bat Vader]

PS: I think most of what you are worried about comes from the fact that video game writers can't write worth a damn. It doesn't matter if you give them a set character or a player made one. They can't write either and just fumble around, unable to characterize anyone properly.

This is why I think they need to start hiring actual authors. I would love to see Neil Gaiman be hired as a writer for a game.

Don't tempt me with such a thing!

Imagine if he was the head writer for the Mass Effect Trilogy.

 

[Something Amyss]

I think there's room for both styles. In GTA 5 for instance, you get three great characters, then you ALSO get to make your own to "live".

Just one question: I've 100%ed the offline game. When do I unlock the great characters?

Ok, I'll accept that there is wide room for taste in regards to three guys committing violent crimes for fun and profit.

You can't do that on the internet! You're supposed to double down on how your opinion is superior and go after mine for being subjective!

(I've still had a lot of fun with the game, for the record. I just don't really love the characters)

 

[AgedGrunt]

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.

There's variance in games where you play as a specific character or create one. For example, in Resident Evil games you get a choice of characters. With Mass Effect, you're Shepard, but you create him/her.

I think the best part of pure create-a-character is the potential to be an anyone, and actually find it weird that you suggest Skyrim was on the right track. It's pretty much what you say you hate: you're the ultimate chosen one/dragonborn, no matter what you create/do, because it's your destiny. I'm not sure about older TES titles, but Fallout is a better example of why CAC in single-player can be a great thing.

We can't have one or the other, or gaming would be boring. There's plenty of variety out there.

 

[Something Amyss]

Oh right, well YOUR MOTHER IS A KUMQUAT!!! And... smelled of elderberries? No that doesn't make sense does it? Look, you will feel my thwarted rage any moment, as soon as I can find it!

That's just your opinion, which I will state despite having issued my own opinions without stating such a disclaimer.

Love your post. The only times I've despaired over games was that time when EVERYTHING had to be WWII. Nothing is worse in games, than universal homogeneity. Variety is one of the greatest strengths of games as a medium!

ONe of the things that annoys me with AAA games is their increased pushed towards more homogeneity. Though indie games seem to be doing it more, too, with retro platformers or first person horror/survival games with roguelike elements and crafting. Still, it's just an annoyance at this part. I can get the games I want. Hell, sometimes I want the market-determined safe pick.

Imagine if he was the head writer for the Mass Effect Trilogy.

Well, the reapers certainly would have turned out better.

 

[Poetic Nova]

I like character creation, allows for more in depth role playing, in the sence that you can give your creation his/hers own backstory.

Besides, it is a nice oppertunity to create a badass female since games still tends to gett dominated by male characters.