The main carachter is you!....but why?

[Vault101]

So this is my issue with the whole Idea of projecting yourself onto the charachter

I dont belive it always works, I think somtimes its more lazyness than "imersion"

I dont always find it more Imersive if my charachter is some bland voiceless walking camera, in fact it somtimes breaks my imersion (why arnt they talking??!! you know I really dont care what happens to you...) F.E.A.R. 2 for example, if Beckett just opened his damn mouth he could have saved lives

that said I supose depending on the genre it can work

Good examples

1.Fallout 3 well it is an RPG which is the idea, however you are given an emotional attachment with everything that goes on, fallout NV it isnt quite the same however I can at least sympathise with the Courier and in both cases a little use of imagination goes a long way

2. Dragon age origins (no I havnt played DA2 yet however I LIKE the idea of a more defined charachter...sue me) anyway thing I like about orgins is yes it is role playing but your charachter has a backstory, they have a place in the world and through that back story even you get a certain veiw on the world of fereldin

3. Half life- now I know this isnt the same for everyone but the thing is its the charachters around gordon freeman that make him the hero, its like they are all relying on you and you actually care about them and they act as if gordon isnt an empty space (plus hes a scientist who wears glasses I dont know why but that makes him a million times more interesting than solder type A)

Bad examples

1. Oblivion I feel like Ive got no connection with whats going on, I have no personallity I can be anything but its as if the world does not ackowlege what I am other than a walking camera (that said its an older game and I didnt play the whole thing)

ok well I cant think of many bad examples but I think my main point is that It dosnt really help the story or imersion if the center of everything thats going on (you) is really a blank space or even worse if they go for somehre in between and the charachter is just bland

I mean I dont think this whole projection thing has to mean the charachter has to be boring, take the boss from saints row 2, would it be nearly as much fun/hilarious if he/she didnt speak?

 

[Sniper Team 4]

It does get a little odd at times when people simply don't talk, especially in FPS games. There are several times, not just in the F.E.A.R. series but in many games, where I'm like, "Okay, what type of inhuman monster ARE you for just standing there and not saying a darn thing?"

 

[mb16]

im strange, but i like games where my character isnt a hero and doesnt have a back story, but just one man of many doing a job. EG: arma 2 or eve online

 

[Wolfram23]

I also often prefer the predefined character. That's partly why I'm enjoying DA2 so far.

 

[Kwaren]

I never got to read the OP. The mangled body of the English language got in the way.

 

[WolfEdge]

I like to think it's just another phase the gaming industry is going through. The blank-slate character has it's place, but I do kinda miss characters like Jak and Daxter, Cloud (yes, angst and all), Sly Cooper, Razputin, and others like them.

 

[The Madman]

I never got to read the OP. The mangled body of the English language got in the way.

Basically defined character vs. blank slate in rpg.

Me? I prefer the middle ground. I like it when a game gives me enough room to create and play a character the way I want to, while still imbuing them with some sense of place, purpose and destiny.

Baldur's Gate is a good example of this done right in an rpg. Ultimately the main protagonist will always be 'the Bhallspawn', much like how in Dragon Age the player character will forever be 'The Warden' and whatnot. Give some story, some background, but allow the player to fill in the blanks for themself and as a result to become more personally involved with their character.

Take too much control away and you end up with Mass Effect where we're all playing Commander Sheperd, and really the only question is whether he/she is a dick or not and who they banged. Don't get me wrong, I *LOVE* Mass Effect. But it does take a bit of the role playing out of the role playing game. Make it too much of a blank slate however, and you end up with games like Oblivion where the main character is... well... nothing. Absolutely nothing! Which sometimes works as well, the trick for those sorts of games is to make the world around you shine and make the setting the games star, that's part of why I loved Morrowind so much.

Either way, some people prefer it one way others another. Neither is really good or bad!

 

[HapexIndustries]

In general I much prefer a blank slate or pseudo-blank slate (non-speaking but established) character, but this is only as long as I am able to make choices or at least project myself onto the character (the Fallout games, HalfLife, KOTOR, most RPGs). However, if I am playing something cinematic I'd rather be a defined character, as long as it doesn't suck.

The best example of a defined character is probably Solid Snake, especially in Metal Gear Solid. He is awesome, everyone knows he is awesome, and you feel awesome being him. He is constantly saying things and doing things that reinforce his character and he even develops a bit as the story progresses. See also: Uncharted (it was ok, not great), the Thief games, Planescape: Torment.

The worst example of this is fucking Metroid: Other M. By totally removing me as a player from the character, and by making a character that I started to actively hate immediately after the opening cinematic (I'm kidding, the hate kicked in as soon as she said something), I found the game to be unapproachable. The same problem pops up in most crappy JRPG games (especially Infinite Undiscovery, which has the least likable protagonist in video game history), but also can be found in almost all the modern Final Fantasy games.

If you're going to make me play a character with their own agenda and feelings and dialog, make sure it's someone I want to be.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Depends on the type of game, I suppose. Personally, I have no problems immersing myself in predefined characters. Indeed, oftentimes it's actually easier; it's closer to acting that having to either fill in the character with your own personality or come up with something on the spot.

I don't object to blank slates, though. It's when there's the implication of a blank slate but the character has a paradoxical personality that I run into problems...though to be fair, I've only ever encountered that in True Love, so far.

 

[darklinkjf]

Yeah, similar to some people in the thread I prefer the main character be predefined or fixed as opposed to having a customizable personality. I like to see the game unfold and tell its story while having some influence over actions the characters do.

But I guess that's why a lot of games have a silent protagonist so you'd feel more at home projecting your own image.

 

[lowkey_jotunn]

With apologies to Extra Credits (stealing their comparison here)

For a better example of good vs bad, look at Fallout 3 and New Vegas. From a game-play perspective they're practically identical. The biggest difference is the narrative, the way your story is told.

In Fallout 3 (the good example) you get a backstory. You find out that your mother died giving birth to you. You grow up with your father, you make some childhood friends, get a surprise Bday party and generally live your life. Getting your pip boy is a big deal, and so is learning the combat system. Even once you're out in the wastes, you run into people who know you. The doctor in Rivet City knew your father and recognizes you. Later in the game, you can go back into the vault where you grew up. The people there will react in accordance with the person you were during the childhood years... though they seemed rather blase about the fact that I strolled back in wearing powered armor or a zombie mask, while caring enough firepower to outfit a small army. :-D



In New Vegas (the bad example) you are no one. You're a courier who gets shot in the face and left for dead before the opening cinematic even finishes, and that's it. You have no father, no mother. No friends of any kind. Only 2 people even know you exist: the guy who shot you, and the courier boss who hired you... and THEY actually don't even know you. The guy who shot you just wanted the thing you were carrying. The courier boss who hired you doesn't recognize you, but he does recognize the friggin UPS tracking number of your delivery, which reminds him of some other various deliveries that took place around the same time, one of which was a chess piece. That's right, a chess piece and a random string of numbers are more memorable to him than YOU were.

Add to this, when you wake up after being shot in the face (because lets face it, it would be a pretty crappy game if you DIDN'T wake up) you're wearing nothing but boxers and a plain white t shirt. The doctor never gives you back the clothes you were wearing when you were brought in. You don't even get to know if you're a snappy dresser. You are no one. Hell, I SAW gloves during the cinematic when I got shot. I HAD GLOVES! Where are my gloves, dammit!? Unless they're trying to imply that the one who took me to the doctor removed my clothes first ... which kinda makes sense given his stalker tendencies.

They could have done something as simple as basing your clothes off the hairstyle you chose. If you pick a neat and tidy trim, you get a sweater vest and slacks. If you pick scruffy looking bed-head, you get the tattered rags. If you pick the crazy mohawk or shaved head, you get leather spikey gear. All with the game telling you "this is what you were wearing when you arrived here." Simple. Easy. Took me all of 30 seconds to think that up, and would be a great step towards giving you a back story based on your own preferences. But no, you are no one.

 

[Huttser]

I ran into this in Borderlands. It is a great game but your character has a history and a past, but you never really learn anything about it, and you don't hear them have a single conversation which really took me out of the game.

 

[darth.pixie]

In RPGs, the blank slate is always better. You get some sort of a background (or don't and have some cinematics where you get to decide what you did) and go from there. In Arcanum (which I consider somewhat of the ultimate RPG) you could create anything from the backgrounds and points. And since the backgrounds were the history you never felt as if you crash landed in the world without any previous knowledge of it.

In other types of games, where you're actually supposed to be watching...blank slate doesn't really cut it. The Witcher had Geralt being Geralt no matter what you picked since he didn't remember who he was and your decisions were explained by him. Maybe you just wanted to help the elves cause you thought they were hot. Geralt can explain it in game. For shooters, it would be easier to relate to someone you know.

Despite Gordon Freeman being a blank slate, you know he's a scientist and you can imagine him muttering and swearing and saying sarcastic one-liners in his head but never voicing them.

And in defense to the Oblivion and Fallout: New Vegas critics...I think it gets more fun if you imagine your own history. For example in Oblivion I just imagined that the PC already was Sheogorath and wanted to have some fun and make the guards mad(it's usually the first quest line that I complete) and for the Courier, I imagined my char was some sort of assassin undercover as a courier until his next assignment. It made stuff more interesting but if I wouldn't have thought of that, the games would have bored me.

 

[lowkey_jotunn]

Take too much control away and you end up with Mass Effect where we're all playing Commander Sheperd, and really the only question is whether he/she is a dick or not and who they banged. Don't get me wrong, I *LOVE* Mass Effect. But it does take a bit of the role playing out of the role playing game. Make it too much of a blank slate however, and you end up with games like Oblivion where the main character is... well... nothing. Absolutely nothing! Which sometimes works as well, the trick for those sorts of games is to make the world around you shine and make the setting the games star, that's part of why I loved Morrowind so much.

Either way, some people prefer it one way others another. Neither is really good or bad!

You're kidding about Mass Effect, right? I mean, sure ... you're Shepard and you're going to save the universe. This much is certain, but how you got here is up to you at the beginning. Military brat? Petty gang member? War hero? Sole Survivor

And once you get going ....

Spoiler: Do we really need Spoiler tags on a 4-year-old game?

So are you the Commander Shepard who saves your long time buddy, or do you save the the chick you might be trying to shag? Who did you let die, and why? (vice versa for femShep, I guess)

Did you punch out the crazy guy in the first mission?

Did you try to save Wrex when he started acting up on Virmire, or just gun him down for the good of the mission? If the option to save him wasn't available on the first play through, did you make sure to get enough points up or down the scale to save him the 2nd time?

Did you let the rachnii queen live, knowing what horrors they'd unleashed before? Or let her live, trusting her word that they would behave this time?

ME2 was even better:

Are you the kind of commander to bang Jack once she's onboard, without actually pursuing the romance options? Speaking of romance, if you bedded Liara in the first game, did you stay true to your missy, or move on to whatever genetically enhanced tail walked through your door?

Pretty much every loyalty mission had options for you to pick your style. Garrus: let him get his revenge, or save the poor victim who is practically peeing himself in terror. Thane: Shoot the hostage since Spectres are above the law? Or shoot a lamp to distract Thane's son while you slug him. Miranda: kill the snitch or let him live (for a few seconds anyway.) Tali: turn her father in for the treason his honestly DID commit, or talk to the council members, learn their motivations and call them out for their own shenanigans? Samara's comes with a crazy choice, but only if you're pro enough to earn it. Legions was the best of all, but I'll let the EX guys take that one.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1974-Enriching-Lives
seriously worth the look, if you haven't seen it already

And that's just scratching the surface, and what I'm willing to type up at midnight. Suffice it to say, while the general idea of Commander Shepard is set, it's actually a pretty incomplete puzzle. Sure, you can boil it down to Chaotic good vs Lawful good, but many choices aren't the perfect black and white, letting you decide what you want to be.

 

[Javarock]

I never got to read the OP. The mangled body of the English language got in the way.

Cheapshot, However I disagree with everything the OP said

 

[PacDwell]

I must admit to preferring to play a pre-defined character. It's always difficult for me to believe *I* am the one in the game, because basically I'm sat in a computer chair looking at a screen.

When was the last time you went to the cinema, where the movie asked you to be the protagonist...? Answer - Never.

It's a joy to re-play 'The Secret of Monkey Island' series, sometimes Guybrush will say things that I would never say (lines you can't pick), and those moments are so much sweeter for it.

Oblivion, for all it's graphical glory, is so boring because frankly you as the protagonist are so bored and boring that even the game doesn't want to know you. Walk up to an interesting looking guard, and they'll say "What is it, citizen?" I shouldn't just be a 'citizen' - I'm the god-damn player - *the* most important character in the game (the rest are 1's and 0's).

The Chronicles of Riddick: EFBB was/is a marvellous game, because Riddick is a marvellous character, and it was a joy to 'watch' him work (albeit controlled via me). It really felt movie'esque - and the in game characters *knew* you were the most important character, and made it so that the player enjoyed the experience. You could overhear two guards talking, and they would be talking about you...

Give me a well-rounded character any day. I've been wondering why these splendid games have been failing to immerse me and capture my imagination, and I'm glad this thread helped me see why.

 

[The Madman]

You're kidding about Mass Effect, right? I mean, sure ... you're Shepard and you're going to save the universe. This much is certain, but how you got here is up to you at the beginning. Military brat? Petty gang member? War hero? Sole Survivor

And once you get going ....

Spoiler: Do we really need Spoiler tags on a 4-year-old game?

So are you the Commander Shepard who saves your long time buddy, or do you save the the chick you might be trying to shag? Who did you let die, and why? (vice versa for femShep, I guess)

Did you punch out the crazy guy in the first mission?

Did you try to save Wrex when he started acting up on Virmire, or just gun him down for the good of the mission? If the option to save him wasn't available on the first play through, did you make sure to get enough points up or down the scale to save him the 2nd time?

Did you let the rachnii queen live, knowing what horrors they'd unleashed before? Or let her live, trusting her word that they would behave this time?

ME2 was even better:

Are you the kind of commander to bang Jack once she's onboard, without actually pursuing the romance options? Speaking of romance, if you bedded Liara in the first game, did you stay true to your missy, or move on to whatever genetically enhanced tail walked through your door?

Pretty much every loyalty mission had options for you to pick your style. Garrus: let him get his revenge, or save the poor victim who is practically peeing himself in terror. Thane: Shoot the hostage since Spectres are above the law? Or shoot a lamp to distract Thane's son while you slug him. Miranda: kill the snitch or let him live (for a few seconds anyway.) Tali: turn her father in for the treason his honestly DID commit, or talk to the council members, learn their motivations and call them out for their own shenanigans? Samara's comes with a crazy choice, but only if you're pro enough to earn it. Legions was the best of all, but I'll let the EX guys take that one.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1974-Enriching-Lives
seriously worth the look, if you haven't seen it already

And that's just scratching the surface, and what I'm willing to type up at midnight. Suffice it to say, while the general idea of Commander Shepard is set, it's actually a pretty incomplete puzzle. Sure, you can boil it down to Chaotic good vs Lawful good, but many choices aren't the perfect black and white, letting you decide what you want to be.

Commander Shepard is a character. We the players can choose what actions he/she takes, but it's still commander Shepard we're playing.

Shepard was born on April 11, 2154[1], is a graduate of the N7 special forces program (service no. 5923-AC-2826), and is initially assigned to the SSV Normandy as Executive Officer. Shepard later becomes the first human to join the Spectres, an elite special task force for the Citadel Council.

The details vary, but you're playing Commander Shepards journey. And while you can choose how they go about doing something, ultimately every Shepard has the same goals and purposes. Shepard is a military minded person, a Commander within the human forces, an N7 agent, a Specter, and ultimately Shepards goal throughout the games, details aside, is to assemble a team to try and save humanity.

You choose the details, but the core of the character remains the same. You're playing Commander Shepard!

Compare that to Baldur's Gate. In Baldur's Gate we know where the protagonist was raised and by whom, we know who their father is, and we've a basic idea of the course of their adventures. Although the basic adventure is the same, every player will fight Sarevok and the Iron Throne as well as Irenicus, the reasons for 'why' are left up to the player however. And why is important! Now it's not only a matter of choosing how specific scenario unfold, but the characters response to them as well. We as the player are expected to fill in the goals and motivations behind the character.

Whereas with Mass Effect know exactly why Shepard is doing what Shepard does however, the details might change, the execution is varied from player to player, but the goal and purpose is the same; to stop the Reapers and save humanity. A very, very broad goal, but a goal nonetheless that helps define Shepard as a character.

Why does 'The Bhallspawn' in Baldur's Gate fight? Well, that's entirely up to the player. What is that characters ambitions? Goals? Again, up to the player.

It's a pretty big difference. And it's worth pointing out here that neither is better than the other. Here, I'll repeat it again; I love Mass Effect. I really think it's a bloody brilliant series and I can't wait for Mass Effect 3! I'm also not by any means saying it's a worse game than any others, simply that it takes a different approach to characterization.

 

[Anah'ya]

---

I'm confused.

The main character in any game I have played so far has never been "me", nor any iteration of me. Well, unless you count the very rare exceptions like Black and White, where you are blatantly referred to as you.

I believe the difference you are looking for here is not "you", but the difference between "blank slate" character and "pre-defined personality".

Maybe I am looking at this the wrong way, but any game that doesn't go at a length to break the fourth wall to get me to believe I am actually the hero here (god forbid that happens, it would irritate me), is just another game in which I play a character that I just have more details to fill out for.

... guess you could say I always RP in games.

... even with Gordon Freeman.

... that came out wrong.

... *goes away*

 

[Stavros Dimou]

I remember one of the games that immersed me most was Duke Nukem 3d.
And Duke Nukem was actually the exact opposite of the silent mute character.
He would talk about everything,he would groan in pain when being hit,he would breath deeply while sprinting.
Duke's voice acted as my subconcious.
He was just saying loud what I was thinking.
And that made me feel more like I am actually there,a part of the game's world,a feeling like I somehow ended inside Duke's body.
He's reactions to the interactive things that happened made Duke feel more like a real person,with likes and dislikes that actually understands what's happening around him and that added to the immersion,making the player feel like his actions are really happening.

In the other side of the spectrum Zelda: The twilight princess was not immersive to me at all.
Link doesn't talk and almost never express his feelings.
Nintendo says that not Link or any other character in the games of the series will ever talk because they want to leave it up to the player's imagination of what would Link say or feels,or how the voices of the people he meet sound,because they say that this immerses the players.
I think they are wrong.
I never felt any of the feelings a person that would get involved in such situations would feel.

I think that the method "make them not to have a voice and not showing feelings" doesn't really add to immersion.
I gave you 2 examples to defend my argument that bland characters aren't immersive.