Which is more important ?

[BobSmith101]

Your character concept or the world ?

 

I've just been reading Sawyers blog where he was talking about certain character concepts not working under certain designs. But does that really matter ?

 

Certainly when playing FO I react to the world around me rather than having a concept as such. The character will have a personality , but his choices will tend to be dictacted by what works rather than by some grand vision of being a "gunslinger" or being a martial artist.

Certainly a character may start out that way ,but if there comes a point where it no longer works then I will switch to something that does. Much as I do in life.

 

That's the question I'm posing should designer pander to the players desire to be a certain something and ensure as much as possible that all skills are equal?

Or should the player bow to the reason that the character although the protagonist in most cases , is still just a denizen of a world that has its own rules?

[sorophx]

character concept? in almost every game I enjoy my character is a blank slate. that's how I like it. a nameless/faceless/silent hero/villain.

 

I guess that means I'd prefer world over character

[pmp10]

What character concept?

WRPGs have long ago given up on predetermining anything of note about player character.

The only things that remain preset are necessitated by presentation and interactivity standards (and occasionally the desire to make sequels).

[BobSmith101]

If you read the FO:NV strat guide it gives a list of different character concepts or archtypes you could make using the special system.

 

I'm not taking about character concept with regards to personality etc. Purely mechanically as to what skills you pick.

 

It's a bit like the player saying "I'm going to be a pure mage" and then expecting the expecting the game to make that happen.

Another way of looking at it would be how much people complained that FO2/3 could not be completed as a pacifist. Even though such a thing in my opinion is a completely unrealistic and nonsensical expectation in the first place.

[WorstUsernameEver]

It's not really "completely unrealistic and nonsensical" when you consider that it was one of the design tenets of the original. It doesn't necessarily have to be like that for every game, but it's pretty disappointing when a game takes away options (btw, I'm fairly sure you can complete FO2 without killing anyone or doing any shooting).

[sorophx]

I'm fairly sure you can complete FO2 without killing anyone

I'm fairly sure Frank Horrigan has to die for the game to end

[WorstUsernameEver]

I'm fairly sure you can complete FO2 without killing anyone

I'm fairly sure Frank Horrigan has to die for the game to end

 

You can hack the turrets and convince the Enclave soldiers to do it for you with speech.

[Undecaf]

I'm fairly sure you can complete FO2 without killing anyone

I'm fairly sure Frank Horrigan has to die for the game to end

 

Technically your character doesn't have to kill him (companions, hacking the turrets, persuading a group enclave soldiers in the lobby - correct me if I'm wrong here).

 

edit - beaten to it

Edited February 19, 2012 by Undecaf

[BobSmith101]

It's not really "completely unrealistic and nonsensical" when you consider that it was one of the design tenets of the original. It doesn't necessarily have to be like that for every game, but it's pretty disappointing when a game takes away options (btw, I'm fairly sure you can complete FO2 without killing anyone or doing any shooting).

 

From the view of the character being most important its not. But if the world is most important having people change just because you talked to them is kind of silly when it's a running theme through the game unless your attribute an almost mystical quality to the speech skill. Speech is an excellent addition to a well rounded character, but I don't think it should be a meta skill.

[sorophx]

You can hack the turrets and convince the Enclave soldiers to do it for you with speech.

so hacking the turrets to kill somebody =/= killing somebody?

[Nonek]

At low levels the character concept is fine, it defines how you approach the world because of limited skills and specialisation. I'm currently around level 40 however and pretty much good at everything and am thus beginning to lose my sense of character. This is the strength of class based systems over skills. Personally i'd like an Alpha Protocol system where only tagged skills can advance to the maximum, thereby ensuring I retain my character image.

 

Then again i'm against the world pandering to my character and will happily accept limitations due to my choices, don't really want to succeed in every endeavour. Too perfect.

[WorstUsernameEver]

You can hack the turrets and convince the Enclave soldiers to do it for you with speech.

so hacking the turrets to kill somebody =/= killing somebody?

 

Yeah? It's kind of a moot point anyway because in Fallout specifically "pacifist" walkthrough have always have more to do with the possibility of totally avoiding the combat mechanics, and never were about not producing casualties during your travels.

That's something that I insist the designers should at least try to make viable, if they put all the mechanics of the game on the same plate and give you a choice. I'm not going to complain if I can't complete Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning without killing anyone because the game is very upfront about its button-mashy nature and clearly differentiates between what are the core skills (and they deal with combat) and the cursory ones (the other ones).

[sorophx]

you're a horrible person. so as long as you don't kill anybody with your own hands, they're clean even if you order the killings?

[GhostofAnakin]

That's the question I'm posing should designer pander to the players desire to be a certain something and ensure as much as possible that all skills are equal?

Or should the player bow to the reason that the character although the protagonist in most cases , is still just a denizen of a world that has its own rules?

 

In terms of design to give the player as many options as possible, I believe that there should be a balance between that and not going too far where the world starts to change to fit your character or play style.

 

For example, if it's a game where you're a hired mercenary, it should be designed so that you can choose to play it as a stealth guy who goes in and assassinates a target quietly, a run-and-gun guy who busts in through the front door shooting, or a diplomat who instead of killing the target, convinces him to work with the organization who hired you. However, the world shouldn't change so that all three options are equally as easy, or the rewards are equal.

 

For instance, perhaps the "ideal" option is the stealth approach; it's the one that just fits the game world best, due to various factors like what your employer wants, what kind of backlash this assignment would have on the game as a whole, how the allies of the target will react, etc.. That will lead to the highest pay from your employer, because they wanted it done clean and without much press. If you choose one of the other options, either you get less pay, or there are other consequences for not eliminating the target as instructed.

 

It fits with one of my dislikes of stealth games that punish you if you so much as trigger a single alarm. I've always been a fan of, while triggering the alarm is a bad thing, it shouldn't automatically mean re-start the level. Instead, it just means you've got a tougher mission ahead of you since now they're alerted to your presence, or now you've got to talk your way out of it, or something. That way you can play the game any way you want, but at the same time the game world doesn't necessarily change to accomodate those choices. It just makes it tougher for you if you decide to go against the "optimal" choice.

[Bos_hybrid]

character concept? in almost every game I enjoy my character is a blank slate. that's how I like it. a nameless/faceless/silent hero/villain.

 

I guess that means I'd prefer world over character

 

I'm the same. But I feel supporting characters (companions/NPCs/villain) are the most important writing aspects of an RPG.