so pissed at Obsidian

[alanschu]

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'm not sure I entirely understand the question.

 

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

 

I disagree with the idea that the player choosing to play a PC role in a way similar to themselves is in any way not "roleplaying."

[alanschu]

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.

 

I'm not sure how your answer applies. Your statement still applies to people that would tend to project themselves onto the character in some way.

 

 

(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?

 

Who's forgetting about it though?

 

 

 

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 agree that there is a devolution of RPGs. Game styles like Oblivion existed long before Baldur's Gate existed. Even then, the first two Fallouts are easily among my favourite RPG games ever, and I'd consider them to be more similar to Oblivion than Baldur's Gate or Planescape: Torment.

[steelfiredragon]

K thanxs good bye.

[Gizmo]

I don't agree that there is a devolution of RPGs. Game styles like Oblivion existed long before Baldur's Gate existed. Even then, the first two Fallouts are easily among my favourite RPG games ever, and I'd consider them to be more similar to Oblivion than Baldur's Gate or Planescape: Torment.

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

[Lord Darius]

I registered here for the sole purpose of saying the following:

 

After games like KOTOR2 and NWN2 we're suddenly stuck with being unable to choose what sex to play? That's an enormous step backwards, and I don't think there can be a serious enough reason for it. I think Obsidian just ignores the obvious wants of modern players.

 

It's no secret that above-mentioned games were popular among ladies, and I'm sure that being able to play as one had a lot to do with it. And now I, as somebody who was waiting for another great game have no choice but to play as a man. Damn sure for you men it's not important, but playing as a man just can't feel as great as playing as a woman! It's impossible, it can never feel the same, it can't be as engrossing under any circumstances. So I wasn't interested enough in the game after that to find out more info about it, but if there are romances in it, then it's going to feel boring like hell. I'm not interested in chicks, see? And I'm not interested in having a male name and being referred to as a man, not interested in having a male back story, not interested in scantily-clad females that I'm sure will be somewhere in this male-oriented game. Where's some content that would appeal to me, why is it all done for others and I'm ignored this time? Why am I denied the right to derive as much enjoyment from playing the game as other players? I'm disappointed with such an unexpected change of attitude after KOTOR2 and NWN2, and my disappointment couldn't be worse. Obsidian deliberately chose to ignore the female portion of its fans.

Hello WhiteMist,

 

If you place Obsidian in game development history, you will find that it is still kind of a newish franchise. NWN 2 and KotOR 2 did have some gender specific dialogue. Sure, things can always be improved upon. Alpha Protocol does look like a male based game, but I am sure females will have the same amount of fun. Not every game needs to be male and female inclusive. Obsidian will no doubt build another multi-gender rpg in the future. What is great about the gaming world in general is that you never know whats around the corner. Something new always pops up.

[Nigel]

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!

The character doesn't need to be an exact copy of the player as if they were digitized into the game by the MCP, but on some level the PC is designed to be relatable to the player. The player needs to identify with that character even if the character is not the player. Playing a character who is your same race, gender, age etc helps create that bond between player and character. These are not the only or even most important characteristics for bonding a player to a character but they are not irrelevant. I didn't play characters in Oblivion or Fallout 3 that looked or behaved anything like me, but you can be sure they didn't look like Michael Thorton either.

 

About games being bad for storytelling though, as humans we make stories out of everything; it's how our minds work. If you mean that games are bad mediums for movie-like storytelling then I agree. Storytelling in general is too broad to say that games can't do it effectively.

[alanschu]

I don't agree that there is a devolution of RPGs. Game styles like Oblivion existed long before Baldur's Gate existed. Even then, the first two Fallouts are easily among my favourite RPG games ever, and I'd consider them to be more similar to Oblivion than Baldur's Gate or Planescape: Torment.

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

 

 

Freedom to act and develop your character the way that you see fit.

 

 

Oblivion is not on par with Fallout for appropriate reaction, but that has more to do with the fact that I consider Oblivion to be an inferior game. Few games are as well designed as Fallout. Baldur's Gate struggles with appropriate reaction as well. My character's dialogue is completely unaffected by my intelligence, save possibly the odd choice here or there. My Paladin with Int 3 could be just as manipulative as the mage with 18 intelligence.

[alanschu]

Michael Thorton's look can be modified near as I can tell.

 

 

Looking back, the thing that I think really stands out is just the sheer hostility in the OP's post. She really could have stated her piece in a fraction of the words. She would have spared herself the confusing Deus Ex paradox, and just stated her piece and moved on.

[Gizmo]

The character doesn't need to be an exact copy of the player as if they were digitized into the game by the MCP, but on some level the PC is designed to be relatable to the player. The player needs to identify with that character even if the character is not the player. Playing a character who is your same race, gender, age etc helps create that bond between player and character. These are not the only or even most important characteristics for bonding a player to a character but they are not irrelevant. I didn't play characters in Oblivion or Fallout 3 that looked or behaved anything like me, but you can be sure they didn't look like Michael Thorton either.

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.

 

About games being bad for storytelling though, as humans we make stories out of everything; it's how our minds work. If you mean that games are bad mediums for movie-like storytelling then I agree. Storytelling in general is too broad to say that games can't do it effectively.

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."

 

Freedom to act and develop your character the way that you see fit.

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)

 

Oblivion is not on par with Fallout for appropriate reaction, but that has more to do with the fact that I consider Oblivion to be an inferior game. Few games are as well designed as Fallout. Baldur's Gate struggles with appropriate reaction as well. My character's dialogue is completely unaffected by my intelligence, save possibly the odd choice here or there. My Paladin with Int 3 could be just as manipulative as the mage with 18 intelligence.

I agree with you there, absolutely. Edited September 6, 2009 by Gizmo

[Purkake]

Michael Thorton's look can be modified near as I can tell.

 

 

Looking back, the thing that I think really stands out is just the sheer hostility in the OP's post. She really could have stated her piece in a fraction of the words. She would have spared herself the confusing Deus Ex paradox, and just stated her piece and moved on.

 

Maybe you can play a gender bending drag Thorton?

[alanschu]

The object of Role Playing is to perceive a situation as another might

 

Is that really the object of role playing, specifically in the context of role playing games? We aren't doing a psych research here

 

 

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?

 

Typically no. Once I find out that "as soon as possible" is in story only with no consequence, I tend to judge it against the game harshly. In the original Fallout, I would very quickly proceed on the quest, even though I had a relatively high threshold of time to do it.

 

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.

 

Of course, I'd do the same if I created a character like Father Tully. Even then, I think many of the people that "project themselves" onto the character don't completely discount the type of character (especially if it is one that is created). Even in a "me" game like Fallout, if someone spends a huge amount of points in improving repairing, they're probably still going to play the game using those abilities.

Edited September 6, 2009 by alanschu

[Gizmo]

The object of Role Playing is to perceive a situation as another might

 

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.

Edited September 6, 2009 by Gizmo

[alanschu]

But now you're getting into the "fun" aspect, which is purely subjective.

 

I suspect you'd be in a significant minority if your decision as someone with a rat phobia was to flat out refuse to deal with them, ultimately preventing the completion of the game.

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

One thing I like about projecting myself onto the character I play is that it usually makes the story feel more personal, and it illicits a stronger emotional response. This is a huge plus, and as far as I'm concerned the big plus about video games over other storytelling mediums (the ability for the player to drive the story the way they see fit). I think it's because of this I can enjoy games that others on this forum seem to place in their crosshairs a lot (Mass Effect, KOTOR).

[Purkake]

Looks like someone(a girl, no less!) wrote a somewhat relevant article on this topic.

[alanschu]

I'm making this it's own post as it's a bit separate from my last one.

 

 

What I realized is that I still do what you do. You say you wouldn't make your decisions for your spellcrafting demonologist PC the same way the you yourself would make, but rather you'd react as the invented persona. The way you state that though makes it feel a bit....disconnected.

 

When I play roleplaying games, I still typically project myself into the character regardless of how I create the character. But I project myself in the way that I imagine what I would be like if I had spent 20 years studying spellcraft and demonology.

 

At first I'm inclined to say we actually just have different ways to talk about the same thing, but I'm not so sure. I do feel as though I am more than able to play the game with a particular character without the same emotional connection, so I'm not so sure it is the same.

[Gizmo]

But now you're getting into the "fun" aspect, which is purely subjective.

Doesn't have to be... I just answered your question .

 

I suspect you'd be in a significant minority if your decision as someone with a rat phobia was to flat out refuse to deal with them, ultimately preventing the completion of the game.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

One thing I like about projecting myself onto the character I play is that it usually makes the story feel more personal, and it illicits a stronger emotional response. This is a huge plus, and as far as I'm concerned the big plus about video games over other storytelling mediums (the ability for the player to drive the story the way they see fit). I think it's because of this I can enjoy games that others on this forum seem to place in their crosshairs a lot (Mass Effect, KOTOR).

Not my cup of tea. Extrapolating how an elf might react is interesting for me, pretending to be an elf is not.

 

What I realized is that I still do what you do. You say you wouldn't make your decisions for your spellcrafting demonologist PC the same way the you yourself would make, but rather you'd react as the invented persona. The way you state that though makes it feel a bit....disconnected.

 

When I play roleplaying games, I still typically project myself into the character regardless of how I create the character. But I project myself in the way that I imagine what I would be like if I had spent 20 years studying spellcraft and demonology.

 

At first I'm inclined to say we actually just have different ways to talk about the same thing, but I'm not so sure. I do feel as though I am more than able to play the game with a particular character without the same emotional connection, so I'm not so sure it is the same.

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).

Edited September 7, 2009 by Gizmo

[alanschu]

What else do you think you are you creating when you make a Mage character? (in any RPG)

 

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 never mentioned Michael Thorton.

 

I fail to see where I mentioned you did. I used him as an example. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not just trying to be obtuse, but I don't think it's a difficult concept to understand how people could project parts of themselves into Michael Thorton's persona in Alpha Protocol.

 

 

Not my cup of tea. Extrapolating how an elf might react is interesting for me, pretending to be an elf is not.

 

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. That's just critical thinking. As you eloquently stated earlier when you brought up the method actors, they don't just extrapolate how their characters should behave. They literally become their characters, and pretend to be them. So much so that it becomes automatic. If someone were to go a step further, I don't think it'd be a stretch to state that there is a some self projection onto their characters either (since it's unavoidable).

 

 

Of course, maybe the people that don't play RPGs the way you think they should feel as though your way is their "cup of tea" either.

Edited September 7, 2009 by alanschu

[Oner]

Looks like someone(a girl, no less!) wrote a somewhat relevant article on this topic.

Ultimately, though, I need games to have a few more girls in them because it's just downright *weird* that they don't. Girls are pretty much an epidemic. We get everywhere. We do all kinds of stuff. There really are an awful lot of us around.

Lul.

[Purkake]

She also wrote this:

 

I don't need games to have more female characters because I need to see myself reflected in them to enjoy them. One of the reasons I love games is because I get to be someone else. I feel very strongly that the ten-foot cow-man I get to be in World of Warcraft is as accurate an extension of my inner personality as any realistic avatar I've ever fretted over. And I don't need games to have more female characters because it's unjust or unfair if they don't. Games ought to be defining their own realities and making their own rules.

[Gizmo]

What else do you think you are you creating when you make a Mage character? (in any RPG)

 

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).

 

 

Not my cup of tea. Extrapolating how an elf might react is interesting for me, pretending to be an elf is not.

 

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)

role-play

  /ˈroʊlˌpleɪ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [rohl-pley] Show IPA

Use role-play in a Sentence

See web results for role-play

See images of role-play

–verb (used with object)

1. to assume the attitudes, actions, and discourse of (another), esp. in a make-believe situation

in an effort to understand a differing point of view or social interaction

: Management trainees were given a chance to role-play labor negotiators.

2. to experiment with or experience (a situation or viewpoint) by playing a role: trainees role-playing management positions.

–verb (used without object)

3. to engage in role-playing.

Origin:

1945–50

Dictionary.com Unabridged

Based on the Random House Dictionary,

Edited September 7, 2009 by Gizmo

[Nigel]

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".

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.

[Gizmo]

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".

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.

Edited September 7, 2009 by Gizmo

[Fionavar]

Thread pruned - could we please try not to antagonise/insult/bait one another ... I am so hoping that is heard as being rhetorical!

[DocDoom]

Personally I'm glad they limited the main character like they did.

 

Usually when you can edit to much of the character the story suffers and becomes generic.

[Hassat Hunter]

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.

 

Developers also spend time in making choices count, different endings, and different lines with each character depending on how you want to deal with them.

I think the developers took their time to put in excluding missions (different fractions), so it's definitely 0% likely you see all the content in 1 game. Or 2 games. Probably not even after 3 games, even if you did all 3 JB stereotypes now.

 

Is that a flaw of the game, that you cannot enjoy a part of the game just because you choose to kill Mr. X instead of saving him, even if the devs spend so much time in the story you get when you save X, in the exact same game, even if you paid for the saving X. content?

Or is that actually one of the strengths of any RPG?

 

As for the major discussion above: I usually play my first character as myself (pick lines I would say, pick the sides I like most etc.), only then a second game and forwards do I roleplay a character, or just pick the other options to see what happen...

Edited September 8, 2009 by Hassat Hunter