Gizmo

I see here that the word "identify" is causing a problem. The part that I bolded in your reply is an almost textbook definition of what it means to identify with someone. To enjoy a game this ability to identify with the character is absolutely essential. Players therefore must identify with Pac Man and the frog in Frogger. If they didn't there would be no game. Imagine that Pac Man and the ghosts looked exactly like the white dots that Pac Man eats. Not only would it be difficult to tell what is what (identity at its most basic), players really wouldn't care what happens to the white dot. That would eliminate all the tension and challenge from the game as players wouldn't even try to eat the dots or avoid the ghosts. One thing that separates Pac Man from being perceived as a simple maze game is the ingenuity of its character design. Pac Man is pretty one dimensional though so it is not difficult for most people to identify with him. When you make an RPG with more complex characters and interactions than in Pac Man it becomes harder to craft a "one size fits all" character that everyone will respond to in the same way. However that need for the player to identify with the character remains. There seem to be three definitions floating in this mix... Identify, as in "having commonalities", Identify as somehow, "substitution", and the new one, Identify as in base recognition ~distinguishing one from another... (I don't think anyone here was using it in that context). One need not identify with a waste bin shaped droid, to enjoy watching one, or playing one in an RPG, but they certainly can try if they wish ~Its just that few games would notice. The part you've emboldened describes an actor's technical ability to act in character (without a script) ~I could as well have substituted 'Writer' and ability to write in character. The original point was about personal actions/reactions that have no bearing on one's own; I mentioned Frogger because it was fun and few if any chose to pretend they were a frog while playing.

Its not the game, its the other players... I don't play random games from a lobby. (The games I had in mind were DOW, C&C, Myth, Homeworld, Ground Control...Dungeonkeeper ) Most of those might even work on dial-up, so the connection is always fine, and the other players just wouldn't quit for losing; and if one loses too much, we might all play coop against multiple CPU armies. When I play MP RTS, its usually 3-way C&C or Dawn of War. We're working on 3-way Cataclysm, but not all of us own it yet.

I guess I'm lucky then, as that's never happened to me. *(of course, that's because I only play LAN; Hamachi is still effectively LAN )

I've played them. My first online Quake match lasted from 8 o'clock to 7 o'clock, but that was before I'd played an RTS, and I've not played MP FPS since (*wait... one exception; I played MP Halo Demo, because a friend really, really wanted to, so I set it up for him and played a few rounds), but in general, MP FPS is not how I'd want to spend my time.

Count me in that group I avoid MMOs like the plague, and will only (and rarely) play multiplayer RTS (for the better AI ~usually). ~If you read post #32, you'll see that my choices were all RTS (and two of them I've never played MP) One of the things I liked in FO3 (call it a sigh of relief), was that for all the wack re-inventiveness, FO3 remains singleplayer just as before. That gets them a start in my book. If its not for PC, and/or does not have a dedicated single player mode (that's worth playing) ~I won't buy it.

You're the one struggling with the idea of people projecting parts of themselves into game characters, not me. If you don't like my explanations, then fine. This seems to be your failing though, not theirs. I'm not strugling, and that wasn't a snap or slight... Seriously, what is the assumed history of a mage character? Is it not someone who has studied long years in the occult? (In the game world I mean). Then I guess all the "role play" in teaching commentary was a complete red herring then? It doesn't seem like you role play in role playing games either, because role playing certainly is not simply extrapolating how a different person might act. (I know its bad... but I just had to)

Doesn't have to be... I just answered your question . I didn't sat that a rat phobia should end the game (there should always be another path ~possibly well hidden); I did say the a rat phobia could [for instance] cause significant difficulty when fighting rats ~and by virtue... encourage the player to adhere to the PC's limitations. I think you're taking the projected persona far too far (and too literally). I'd be suspect that anyone creating a character such as the one that you describe, or that had a rat phobia or whatever, would simply play those characters as if it was themselves. But, is it that hard to fathom that a game that equally weights its dialogue choices like Alpha Protocol, that place themselves into the character of Michael Thorton? I'd argue it very much makes sense given that Michael Thorton did not spend two or more decades studying spellcraft and demonology. What else do you think you are you creating when you make a Mage character? (in any RPG)I never mentioned Michael Thorton. Not my cup of tea. Extrapolating how an elf might react is interesting for me, pretending to be an elf is not. Its a fundamental difference I think. For me it is disconnected. I would not imagine myself after twenty years in occult study, I'd imagine a bullied youth that resented being beat down by what he'd consider muscle headed morons, and sought out anything, anything at all to achieve power over the world and the ability to inflict his will on others that he thinks lesser than himself, (the sly one would say ~but isn't that you? ; but no, its just me extrapolating his past to fit his present ~The game itself, is his future).

Is that really the object of role playing, specifically in the context of role playing games? We aren't doing a psych research here Well... If I made a PC that presumably spent two or more decades studying spellcraft and demonology; Chose to wear enchanted robes and keep company with a vile minded Imp... I'd hardly find it more enjoyable to react as myself than as the invented persona. Personally... I'd not play it as "me as Edwin", but rather just... Edwin. Having him react as Edwin ~even if it gets him into trouble and /or ultimately loses him opportunities ~or gets him killed. Think of it as RPG Solitaire, where the Character [hand] you are dealt might not be able to finish the game ~but its no less fun to play.

One does not need to identify with a game's protagonist to have fun playing a game. [i think Frogger and Pac-man are proof enough] One need not relate in RPG's either... The character might be an alien, or a robot (perhaps neither one even humanoid). The object of Role Playing is to perceive a situation as another might, a good example of this is a good actor's ability to sink into character for the whole day (even off the set, and of script), where they've "got" the behavior down to a science, and can believably react to anything "in character". At least one guy did this on Babylon 5, and he WAS that alien so long as he had on the makeup . What we need are games that examine key situations for player responses and compare them to previous choices ~looking for patterns that hint at the PC's intents, and attitude (or alignment, even if that's only internal.) *And have alternate sets of dialog responses for situations where the PC might have a low opinion (as a paladin forced to talk to a thief), or high esteem (that same paladin allowed to speak to the arch bishop of his order) ~~And completely different if that PC were instead a fallen Paladin, bard, mage or druid ~or an ork. There is a wonderful quote by John Carmack for that, it goes..."Story in a game is like a story in a porn movie. It's expected to be there, but it's not that important." If you were playing a cleric entrusted with a holy relic; sent on a journey to a mountain top retreat... to deliver the item safely as soon as possible. Would you make any stops? If I were playing that PC, I'd examine my character's stats, and bio/info if there was any, and if he was a pious fellow, I'd pass up anything along the way no matter how tempting (saints forbid the relic be stolen, or lost ). However... If he's the Father Tully type, I'd go out of my way to stop at every tavern from here to the mountain begging alms for a stiff drink. (if only more devs put that option in their games ). It be nice if they put insanities and strange quirks in the character generation... Things like fear of rats, or compulsive greed. (and have the game react differently ~say.... +10 to hit and dodge for all rats that the PC must fight ~and commensurate XP for the ordeal) I agree with you there, absolutely.

Similar in the freedom to act perhaps, but do you really think Oblivion is par with Fallout on appropriate reaction?

Characters change during play, and no two are truly identical. We agree here on the emboldened point. Because it's fun? I hope this is a rhetorical question. It really wasn't... Why make a detailed PC,then forget about it? That is ironic (and I won't dispute it, but I'm not roleplaying them, I'm concerned that future "RPG's" will devolve into "Me simulators").

I don't disagree with you here in the first bit... but does Fallout3 or Oblivion describe the differences between you and the PC? Same here... I don't begrudge, but I see the entire industry starting to leaning towards "me, me, me" products, and the future outlook for games with interesting quirky player characters is looking grim. (and will be, if "RPGs" start to all become "Me simulators"). I can accept holding a differing opinion, but how exactly can [or do] you disagree with my interpretation of "role" playing?

That is the problem, made plain as can be; Players put themselves in the PC's place ~Instead of playing the PC... That's not Role playing, its improv (Games like Oblivion make it [almost] impossible to play any other way). ** "Role playing" started out as a teaching tool to impart empathy, and to enable one person to see the situation from another's "shoes". What you've described is replacing that other person with one's self and making decisions as seems right to you, and not necessarily what's right to them. (Why spend an hour designing a character to then just play as yourself?)

IMO no game should be designed to represent the player in the gameworld; That destroys even the slightest chance of a good story and adds bloat to the character generation (see Oblivion and FO3 for prime examples). Games are bad mediums for storytelling anyway ~but that makes it worse. The less control over the protagonist's background that the player has, the greater the freedom left to develop a tight story, well suited to the [known] PC. [Riven is a notable exception ] The RTS Sacrifice [iMO] has a better story than Oblivion, and that story cannot be tampered with by the player (apart from a few branch choices). *technically Oblivion and Sacrifice would seem to have somewhat of the same base plot! In RPG's specific... A mutable main PC is a great thing, if the game is designed to acknowledge those changes directly. Oblivion (for instance ~notable for the sheer amount of customization and the ability to design your own class), takes no notice of hardly any of it, (aside from general race and noticeably high skills). To me that's excess crust on the pizza. Some (I've read), consider Adventure games as non-combat puzzle & exploration games (and this may be the consensus), but I consider any exploration game without a defined role, as an adventure game, and this include Oblivion. The reason is simple... There is no need for a name in Oblivion. Its never used and never spoken ~It affects nothing. In tpp games a name identifies the PC among others onscreen, but in a FPP game you never have to distinguish them. Oblivion [to keep the example], is a class simulator that allows the player to assume the powers and abilities of their chosen class (assassin, wizard, warrior, etc...), but offers no guiding persona, no encouraged ethics or beliefs, no "role" to speak of... Its just "get out there! and do whatever...".. That's an adventure game IMO; Played solely for exploration purposes, and little different than Doom & Heretic. The flipside is Baldur's Gate and Torment. Both games assign a known past. With the BG series, you might have assigned ethics, but both games track your behavior, and open up or close off aspects depending on it. In BG you are a Bhalspawn (and its not just a few special abilities). In Torment you are an Immortal who is constantly reminded of past transgressions. In both games there exists a defined role, though in Torment, the role is of an unsure man that can't remember. With Nameless you can be the bastard or the saint, (conceivably both, if you change your behavior each time you resurrect), but it falls within the role, and the game keeps watch. Games that have customizable PC's, can certainly be used by those wishing to create themselves (as close as they are able) for in the game, but IMO the game itself shouldn't [overly] cater to this if its an RPG.

Homeworld: Cataclysm I'd play multiplayer matches that involved stealth, deception, dirty tricks, brute force beat downs, baiting, interstellar mortar fire (ala the siege cannon ), unit formations that actually affect outcome, and incredibly well suited music built in. Matches might be quick or span four hours (during which I might have an armada, or a half naked burning command ship hobbling away towards a worm hole for dear life). Giants: Citizen Kabuto Can there be a more unique multiplayer game? Mercenaries in Power Armor vs. a nearly naked sword wielding aquatic spell caster, vs a 65' tall egg laying male behemoth with little aliens impaled on his horns for snacks... ... Oh right... Sacrifice Sacrifice is also a pretty amazing RTS, where you play a summoner mage that serves as both General and base camp. He runs around the map (trying not to get killed), followed by dancing mana-hores,and what ever creatures he's called up from the deep and given souls. (Unfortunately I can't vouch for MP experience due to not finding anyone to play) Myth 2: Myth 2 has been mentioned earlier, and should always be assumed to win hands down in my book These are my four favorite RTS (though the one I play most is C&C Zero Hour which I like, and my friends actually have. ) *technically five, because I love Homeworld multiplayer as well as HW:Cataclysm (its different though).

http://homeworld.wikia.com/wiki/Homeworld_3

Shouldn't matter I'd think. I thought it was NOLF2

Some people would say yes. Especially female gamers. The story is about a man. It shouldn't matter what the player's gender is; You're playing out him, his life, his past, not yourself. Many people like to play themselves in RPGs, and games like Torment do not allow that. Which is why it won't be held in as high regard by them. If your/my opinions differ to theirs, to bad. That's the way they play. Its true, that's for sure... (and its their loss for being close minded and gender prejudiced). Roleplaying in general began as a teaching tool to impart empathy. The whole idea of an RPG is to play someone other than one's self. (As for Planescape... I've never played a better RPG)

Some people would say yes. Especially female gamers. The story is about a man. It shouldn't matter what the player's gender is; You're playing out him, his life, his past, not yourself. I've another RPG called 'Seal of Evil', where you play the town Elder's daughter ~that's the role that the game assigns, I don't see anything wrong with that. Funny review I found for it... Strange, and borders on insulting, but for some (lame) reason, the reviewer likens it to Fallout 2. (he's quite mistaken btw, and I can't figure out in the least why he didn't liken it to Baldur's Gate instead). http://www.cnet.com.au/seal-of-evil-pc-review-240054342.htm *He's right about the voice work though...

I can see it now... the opening intro shows Lara do one of here dizzying cliff top jumps~ and miss... Falling into a deep inaccessible crevice on some ancient Tibetan temple mountain... GPS still beeping, and heartbeat monitor showing decline. Enter Larry. Larry Croft goes off to rescue his step sister before its too late. [same animations... different model ]

I apologize, I didn't thank you for your answer. Thank you I mentioned Oblivion because it is a game that succeeds at putting the player in the virtual world as themselves. I played my PC to 26th level, but the game was just not my kind of RPG. I never play as the PC, and the game seemed intended for players that wished to assume an in game identity like some large single player MMO. Not my cup of tea. *Its kind of the reason I asked, "Who plays an RPG as themselves?".

They were cool games, but many fans of Morrowind were disappointed in Oblivion, just as many fans of Fallout were with FO3 ~and the stinger is that they were disappointed for [in some cases] exactly the same reasons despite the different series. (but it was the same developer). Those that only played those recent two cannot compare them to their respective series and so... cannot see why they disappoint. Cannot accept that others might [seemingly] scoff at their idea of awesome. Possibly a fellow Boondocks fan I see(if you don't get the reference... then I guess not )

I'm not sure how this relates to the discussion of how someone is able to place themselves into the game. Why not? Oblivion has no problem with placing you "there" in the game... Its a one trick pony and that's it's one trick. I just don't see how that makes it a [non-existant] role playing game.

Why not? I'm not saying I don't roleplay in different ways either, but I have no issues playing a game like Deus Ex, and playing the character and making the choices that I would probably do if I was in that specific situation. I also have no problems playing the situation for the type of character that I am currently playing. I only played the Demo for Deus Ex, and don't remember much about it.RPG's present you with a world and a character (as opposed to a persona). In Baldur's Gate you play a person born of bizarre circumstance and with unique talents. You have a father (figure), and a defined past with acquaintances. This game is conducive to extrapolated play; In Oblivion you are a criminal without a past, without a crime, and realistically, without need of a name. You have no defined ethics, no defined class, no defined goal (other than Septim's request) ~In other words, you have no role to play. Oblivion is an endless trek of meaningless choices. Sure you can choose the good path, and the bad, and the neutral; Become leader of all guilds, and all disciplines... and you can invent the role as well ~on the fly. Its meaningless, like water in the air with no container. Strange game, the only way to win is not to play. I can't say I have ever heard anyone else say that Fallout 3 reminds them of No One Lives Forever 2. I wish that Fallout 3 reminded me of No One Lives Forever 2. It reminds me of Nolf2 in that its a beautiful retro-looking skill based shooter with inventory and limited dialog and they both have a space level . 'Cept that NOLF2's NPC's notice dead bodies, and the game has vehicular combat.

Go watch the Connections series by James Burke when you can. ______________ 5 years huh... and classic? *starts thinking... Can't think of anything in that time frame except (maybe Dawn of War). I haven't played Witcher, MOTB, Stalker, [though I own all 3] and nothing that is not a PC title.