so pissed at Obsidian

[Purkake]

People are weird.

 

That is all.

[alanschu]

Like I said, I have yet to not purchase a game that I believe will be a good game simply based on the character sex.

 

 

Those that deny themselves fun games on this are missing out IMO.

[Sannom]

but the gameplay, story, and characters were all less interesting.

 

I agree about the gameplay, not so much about the story and characters. I thought those were still top material, and the plot was more focused while still being interesting and complex. I especially loved the revelation that two factions that were fighting each other were actually part of the same plot by the same organization, plot aimed at reorganizing human society as quickly as possible.

 

if this game only allowed me to roleplay a female character, where I can shag guys and have an interactive sex scene with one of them, would I still want to play this game?

 

Okay, I admit, I was weirded out when Carth made his declaration to my character in the first Kotor, where I played a female character. So I think I see your point. But I would still probably play it, and try to avoid getting too close to the love interests

 

But I still think the point of the OP to be ridiculous. Alpha Protocol is not like a normal RPG, it is not like what Obsidian does regularly. They tried something different because they wanted to change a little bit, that doesn't mean that all their games will follow that formula from now on!

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

To be fair, I haven't played through DX2 since shortly after its release; so I'm simply going on my experience of not being particularly impressed during my first and only playthrough. I don't remember the specifics of any of those aspects, which I assume means that I didn't find them particularly compelling. My guess is that I didn't consider them bad, just purely functional.

Edited September 6, 2009 by Cl_Flushentityhero

[Webslinger]

Like I said, I have yet to not purchase a game that I believe will be a good game simply based on the character sex.

 

 

Those that deny themselves fun games on this are missing out IMO.

 

 

Okay, if you're a straight male, how is it fun to have the (interactive) option to have a sex scene with another male?

Edited September 6, 2009 by Webslinger

[Webslinger]

Okay, I admit, I was weirded out when Carth made his declaration to my character in the first Kotor, where I played a female character. So I think I see your point. But I would still probably play it, and try to avoid getting too close to the love interests

 

The only reason I posted is because my fianc

Edited September 6, 2009 by Webslinger

[Sannom]

You know, I think I agree with you. What I find ridiculous here is the over-reaction. The OP is too angry, giving names to the people at Obsidian, thinking that every Obsidian game will never include a female protagonist again, etc. The reaction is just too violent for such a minor point, it certainly didn't need a topic for that. A simple post in another topic would have been just enough.

[Nigel]

Well I have a major problem with playing a CIA agent, but I'll wait until the credits roll to judge whether my experience has been negatively impacted by the profession of the main character.I wont go into a flame over it, and judge the game or the devs on the basis of one bad (in my eyes) design choice.

 

Except...you're not a CIA agent.

 

This went right over my head, everywhere I read M.T. is a rookie CIA agent?

No, you are not a CIA agent, whereas the OP is a woman. Capice?

 

Also I don't understand why people are ragging on the OP for liking Deus Ex. She made it pretty clear that her beef was with Obsidian whose previous games allowed players to choose female characters. Deus Ex is not an Obsidian game. Her expectation is that AP will be like DX but this time she's sitting it out. That sounds reasonable enough to me.

 

I can also relate to her frustration. It gets tiring playing the same looking character after a while, especially when the character in no way represents you. In an RPG this is even more disappointing because RPGs usually provide an escape from the typical focus group designed everyman. For instance the heroes of Alpha Protocol, Drake's Fortune, Wolfenstein and Shadow Complex all basically look the same. Sometimes I get confused when I see screenshots from these games as to which is which because of this similarity. Sure, in NOLF and BG&E you have to play a female character but guess what? Those games didn't sell particularly well despite raving critical acclaim and being all out awesome. I think A LOT of gamers feel like the OP, but they tend to be white males so this isn't usually an issue for them.

[mr insomniac]

What some people seem to be forgetting is the romance subplot(s) are all optional. You don't have to play them through to their conclusion, thus saving yourself from being offended by said subplot(s). From what I understand there is even an achievement for not having sex in this game. I'm sure AP will still be a pretty fun game without the romance.

[Webslinger]

What some people seem to be forgetting is the romance subplot(s) are all optional.

 

I'm not forgetting that.

 

I think that some people who are making this claim aren't realizing that as a full RPG gaming experience, developers included those romance options to allow for a richer roleplaying experience. And that full experience probably would not be appreciated by some straight female gamers. The developers took time to develop that portion of the game. So all buyers will be paying for that option, regardless of whether they make use of it. And if the romance options weren't intended to offer a fuller roleplaying experience, then it wouldn't make sense to include those options nor spend resources developing them.

 

Anyway, even if you don't agree with me, this issue is something to consider. I know that some female gamers have felt excluded, on average, by gaming developers.

Edited September 6, 2009 by Webslinger

[mr insomniac]

I doubt that gamers who don't play out the romances are going to miss a significant part of the game. In BG2, Mass Effect, Kotor, Kotor 2 and even Torment, the romances made up a pretty small part of the overall gaming experience. They were all still good games.

 

Anyway, I know the OP had issues with being forced to play a male protagonist that went beyond the scope of romances alone, and like others have pointed out, the best way to protest is to not buy the game.

[alanschu]

Like I said, I have yet to not purchase a game that I believe will be a good game simply based on the character sex.

 

 

Those that deny themselves fun games on this are missing out IMO.

 

 

Okay, if you're a straight male, how is it fun to have the (interactive) option to have a sex scene with another male?

 

 

I have never done an interactive sex scene as a female character, and hence, cannot really judge. Having said that, I'm skeptical that I'd be bothered. I did not have issues pursuing a romance on Carth or Anomen.

 

 

Having said that, it was never an issue for me while playing the Peppermint Patty sections of Leisure Suit Larry hehehe.

 

 

 

Also I don't understand why people are ragging on the OP for liking Deus Ex. She made it pretty clear that her beef was with Obsidian whose previous games allowed players to choose female characters. Deus Ex is not an Obsidian game. Her expectation is that AP will be like DX but this time she's sitting it out. That sounds reasonable enough to me.

 

No one has any issue that she's disappointed that this Obsidian game doesn't have a female character option. However, when one of her favourite games doesn't have a female character option, AND she expects Alpha Protocol to be even better than Deus Ex, then she's just being absurd.

 

She basically said "I refuse to enjoy this game that I suspect I'll really like, based purely on the grounds that it doesn't have a female character in it."

 

Not only that, she seemed to indicate she was also going to ignore future Obsidian titles as well.

[RPGmasterBoo]

Well I have a major problem with playing a CIA agent, but I'll wait until the credits roll to judge whether my experience has been negatively impacted by the profession of the main character.I wont go into a flame over it, and judge the game or the devs on the basis of one bad (in my eyes) design choice.

 

Except...you're not a CIA agent.

 

This went right over my head, everywhere I read M.T. is a rookie CIA agent?

No, you are not a CIA agent, whereas the OP is a woman. Capice?

 

Also I don't understand why people are ragging on the OP for liking Deus Ex. She made it pretty clear that her beef was with Obsidian whose previous games allowed players to choose female characters. Deus Ex is not an Obsidian game. Her expectation is that AP will be like DX but this time she's sitting it out. That sounds reasonable enough to me.

 

I can also relate to her frustration. It gets tiring playing the same looking character after a while, especially when the character in no way represents you. In an RPG this is even more disappointing because RPGs usually provide an escape from the typical focus group designed everyman. For instance the heroes of Alpha Protocol, Drake's Fortune, Wolfenstein and Shadow Complex all basically look the same. Sometimes I get confused when I see screenshots from these games as to which is which because of this similarity. Sure, in NOLF and BG&E you have to play a female character but guess what? Those games didn't sell particularly well despite raving critical acclaim and being all out awesome. I think A LOT of gamers feel like the OP, but they tend to be white males so this isn't usually an issue for them.

 

Ah, yes well that depends on the way a person role plays. I'm personally pretty much tired of the CIA, the US army and all that goes with it in any media, not just in games. So knowing that the PC of Alpha Protocol is a CIA agent is an instant minus in my book, but I'll play the game anyway.

[Zoma]

I enjoy role playing as females, as shown with my long list of female PCs played in various NWN and NWN2 Persistent worlds.

 

Heck, I even enjoyed playing more as a female Shepard than a male one in ME, with obvious voice acting quality reasons.

 

The only principle I keep while playing these characters would be they should never ever get involved in sexual situations. Because if I do, I will definitely get gender confused like Tony Evans since like him, I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body afterall.

[Darth InSidious]

Well I have a major problem with playing a CIA agent, but I'll wait until the credits roll to judge whether my experience has been negatively impacted by the profession of the main character.I wont go into a flame over it, and judge the game or the devs on the basis of one bad (in my eyes) design choice.

What's wrong with the Celestial Intervention Agency?

[Gizmo]

Anyway, I know the OP had issues with being forced to play a male protagonist that went beyond the scope of romances alone, and like others have pointed out, the best way to protest is to not buy the game.

 

I can also relate to her frustration. It gets tiring playing the same looking character after a while, especially when the character in no way represents you. In an RPG this is even more disappointing because RPGs usually provide an escape from the typical focus group designed everyman.

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.

Edited September 6, 2009 by Gizmo

[alanschu]

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).

 

You're not at all understanding what people mean when they say they project themselves onto the character in the game.

 

It has nothing to do with the "blank slate" type characters that you describe in Oblivion and Fallout 3. People project themselves into the characters they play in almost every RPG. They have the characters make decisions based on how they themselves would make the decisions if given the area, and so forth. People just assume control of the character at the start of the game, and place themselves into that role of the main character.

 

I have projected myself onto the characters of The Nameless One, The Bhaalspawn, JC Denton, Revan, both Vault Dwellers, and the original Vault Dweller's decendent, etc. etc. etc.. It doesn't have to do with whether or not there is background or the ability to go anywhere and do anything. That just allows for more flexibility in how you create the character and proceed through, but it ultimately it's not at all necessary to need this in order for game players to project themselves onto the main character.

Edited September 6, 2009 by alanschu

[Silvernite]

Well I have a major problem with playing a CIA agent, but I'll wait until the credits roll to judge whether my experience has been negatively impacted by the profession of the main character.I wont go into a flame over it, and judge the game or the devs on the basis of one bad (in my eyes) design choice.

 

Except...you're not a CIA agent.

 

This went right over my head, everywhere I read M.T. is a rookie CIA agent?

No, you are not a CIA agent, whereas the OP is a woman. Capice?

 

Also I don't understand why people are ragging on the OP for liking Deus Ex. She made it pretty clear that her beef was with Obsidian whose previous games allowed players to choose female characters. Deus Ex is not an Obsidian game. Her expectation is that AP will be like DX but this time she's sitting it out. That sounds reasonable enough to me.

 

I can also relate to her frustration. It gets tiring playing the same looking character after a while, especially when the character in no way represents you. In an RPG this is even more disappointing because RPGs usually provide an escape from the typical focus group designed everyman. For instance the heroes of Alpha Protocol, Drake's Fortune, Wolfenstein and Shadow Complex all basically look the same. Sometimes I get confused when I see screenshots from these games as to which is which because of this similarity. Sure, in NOLF and BG&E you have to play a female character but guess what? Those games didn't sell particularly well despite raving critical acclaim and being all out awesome. I think A LOT of gamers feel like the OP, but they tend to be white males so this isn't usually an issue for them.

QFTW

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

Personally, my characters tend to vary in the level of similarity to myself. Some are vaguely autobiographical, whereas others are as far my own personality as I can manage. Whichever one players want to do, having meaningful choices in CC (of which I would consider gender one) helps.

[Gizmo]

People project themselves into the characters they play in almost every RPG. They have the characters make decisions based on how they themselves would make the decisions if given the area, and so forth. People just assume control of the character at the start of the game, and place themselves into that role of the main character.

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?)

Edited September 6, 2009 by Gizmo

[alanschu]

That is the problem

 

I disagree.

 

 

Instead of playing the PC... That's not Role playing, its improv

 

I adamantly disagree. They are still playing the PC, it's just a role that is similar to the person playing the game.

 

 

Games like Oblivion absolutely do not make it impossible to play any other way. It's not at all difficult to play games like Fallout 3 and Oblivion in ways that in no way mesh with the type of person that I actually am. In fact, I'd argue that the opportunities to do so are greater than in games like PS:T and BG, since there's just THAT much more freedom to create the character in any way.

 

 

I won't begrudge you your definition of what you think it means to appropriately "roleplay" a character, although I do disagree with it. I'm just stating this as it's important to understand the subjective interpretations that many people have of such terms, so that you don't incorrectly ascribe your own interpretations of the terms onto others when it may not be appropriate. You may not agree with it, but hopefully it'll make it easier to see where other people come from.

 

For instance, I disagree with your interpretation of what it means to "roleplay" a character, but I understand where you're coming from.

[213374U]

People project themselves into the characters they play in almost every RPG. They have the characters make decisions based on how they themselves would make the decisions if given the area, and so forth. People just assume control of the character at the start of the game, and place themselves into that role of the main character.

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 as might seem right to them.

You know, I was going to make a post yesterday saying precisely this. But I thought it would be superfluous, as you had explained it already and I doubt I could do better.

 

All I'm going to add is that those who only play RPGs as themselves miss out on the great fun that is creating and putting on a new personality every time. That IS what roleplaying is all about.

 

edit: lol alanschu

Edited September 6, 2009 by 213374U

[Gizmo]

I adamantly disagree. They are still playing the PC, it's just a role that is similar to the person playing the game.

Games like Oblivion absolutely do not make it impossible to play any other way. It's not at all difficult to play games like Fallout 3 and Oblivion in ways that in no way mesh with the type of person that I actually am. In fact, I'd argue that the opportunities to do so are greater than in games like PS:T and BG, since there's just THAT much more freedom to create the character in any way.

I don't disagree with you here in the first bit... but does Fallout3 or Oblivion describe the differences between you and the PC?

 

I won't begrudge you your definition of what you think it means to appropriately "roleplay" a character, although I do disagree with it. I'm just stating this as it's important to understand the subjective interpretations that many people have of such terms, so that you don't incorrectly ascribe your own interpretations of the terms onto others when it may not be appropriate. You may not agree with it, but hopefully it'll make it easier to see where other people come from.

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").

 

For instance, I disagree with your interpretation of what it means to "roleplay" a character, but I understand where you're coming from.

I can accept holding a differing opinion, but how exactly can [or do] you disagree with my interpretation of "role" playing? Edited September 6, 2009 by Gizmo

[alanschu]

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.

 

No one is replacing anything. They're just placing in a role that is similar to yourself. The Bhaalspawn doesn't have a prescribed character. If it did, all dialogue options would have a single node, since the character has already been decided, and would already respond in a different way.

 

It's impossible to remove yourself from any role that you put into the character though. You're still making the decisions based on what you feel would be the most appropriate action for the PC, the way that you perceive the PC's situation.

 

 

(Why spend an hour designing a character to then just play as yourself?)

 

Because it's fun? I hope this is a rhetorical question. Even if someone is projecting themselves onto their character, there's still a caricature due to the fantasy element. I have no proficiency whatsoever with small arms or energy weapons, but when I play Fallout I still pick those skills because I find them interesting. Based on the skill and attributes I choose, I usually play myself with my impression of how I would behave if I had those attributes/perks/traits/skills. As our numbers friend has pointed out though, it can be a ton of fun to play different characters (which also adds to the replayability), and I have no issue doing that (it was harder when I was younger though).

 

 

What I find particularly ironic is that the edited part of your post makes reference to role playing has its origin as a teaching tool to impart empathy, yet you seem to exhibit a complete lack of understanding and empathy for those that choose to play their PCs with some sort of self projection onto the main character.

[Gizmo]

No one is replacing anything. They're just placing in a role that is similar to yourself. The Bhaalspawn doesn't have a prescribed character. If it did, all dialogue options would have a single node, since the character has already been decided, and would already respond in a different way.

Characters change during play, and no two are truly identical.

 

It's impossible to remove yourself from any role that you put into the character though. You're still making the decisions based on what you feel would be the most appropriate action for the PC, the way that you perceive the PC's situation.

We agree here on the emboldened point.

 

(Why spend an hour designing a character to then just play as yourself?)

Because it's fun? I hope this is a rhetorical question.

It really wasn't... Why make a detailed PC,then forget about it?

 

As our numbers friend has pointed out though, it can be a ton of fun to play different characters (which also adds to the replayability), and I have no issue doing that (it was harder when I was younger though).

 

What I find particularly ironic is that the edited part of your post makes reference to role playing has its origin as a teaching tool to impart empathy, yet you seem to exhibit a complete lack of understanding and empathy for those that choose to play their PCs with some sort of self projection onto the main character.

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"). Edited September 6, 2009 by Gizmo