Main Character Dies... Game over or...?

[motorizer]

To be fair...I will reload if my character dies...therefore this would not affect me...therefore I don't really care either way

[Dream]

Dragon Age 2 is a bad example in my opinion because it wasn't a finished game. Or rather, Copy+Paste game. Baldur's Gate 2 can work without the backstory from Baldur's Gate 1.

 

@motorizer: I kind of want a red thread going across both games rather than a "figure" or an "actor" being the red thread. But I understand. If possible, being P:E2 being ambivalent somehow, that it could be a new hero just as much as it is the predecessor from P:E1.

 

Dragon Age 2 is also narratively a bad example, because it left the red thread and poked it some times when mentioning the "Warden". It was way too vague in my opinion. I never finished DA2 though, and obviously no multiple playthroughs, how much does the background you choose effect the story?

 

Opposing Force, Blue Shift & Half-Life is in my opinion a great example. In Blueshift you get to see Freeman once or twice running past you as well. Just finished Black Mesa <3 *relaxed* what a great game want Blue Shift, Opposing Forces mods naow! Haha

 

TL;DR: Discussing sequels

 

Those were more spin-offs than sequels. They could make P:E-Requiem and P:E-Redemption (great names, right?) be spin offs about other characters while P:E-2 would be a continuation of the PC's story.

[Sacred_Path]

IWD is like that; you make 6 characters and play a party. In P:E that isn't the case; you're playing a character. One character. The party is just a group of people who are along for the ride.

 

please, keep your meta-gamey LARPing out of my mechanics discussion. Never have the devs said that companions are just Santa's little helpers "along for the ride". You just wish to imagine that because otherwise the whole "chosen one" premise goes to crap.

 

They have their own motivations and goals and all you do is control them in combat (you're the leader). They're NPCs for a reason, not co-PCs.

 

They will have their own agenda, the devs have confirmed that. But I hope that their agenda isn't a petty little personal affair that can be resolved whenever you find the time and then there's nothing left of personality to them. I remember reading that the companions will tie into the story somehow, and that makes it a viable option to give the burden of responsibility for the main quest over to them.

The reason why there are interactive companions has more to do with immersion and satisfying players' demands in a single player game.

 

I don't mean that Obsidian has explicitly said it, but it is pretty clear from the other things we know (i.e. the nature of the companions).

 

the "nature of companions" (which we know very little about) doesn't dictate that they will all stand around mute while the entire dialogue and narrative rests only on the main character.

 

There is absolutely no doubt that players creating their own party will miss out on a good chunk of content. As you can read in the page you linked above, a lot of the effort in making a game like this goes into writing the companions. If you choose not to interact with them and make your own party instead, you will miss out.

 

This could unfortunately be true, but still be bad design. However I don't think it will come to that, because deaths are permanent in P:E and I don't think that you could carry the same party through the entire game on the higher difficulties. So they will have to find some compromise between what the companions offer (which I would expect is mostly dialogue) and what you will experience when you don't have Ai companions in the party.

[Dream]

please, keep your meta-gamey LARPing out of my mechanics discussion. Never have the devs said that companions are just Santa's little helpers "along for the ride". You just wish to imagine that because otherwise the whole "chosen one" premise goes to crap.

 

It's not a premise; it's the basis of video games. Chosen one or not you're playing one character, and it doesn't matter if you're the messiah or some Joe Schmoe of the street; the game ends when you die.

[Sacred_Path]

It's not a premise; it's the basis of video games. Chosen one or not you're playing one character, and it doesn't matter if you're the messiah or some Joe Schmoe of the street; the game ends when you die.

 

except in those cases where you control more than one character. But this is becoming somewhat retarded.

[Dream]

It's not a premise; it's the basis of video games. Chosen one or not you're playing one character, and it doesn't matter if you're the messiah or some Joe Schmoe of the street; the game ends when you die.

 

except in those cases where you control more than one character. But this is becoming somewhat retarded.

 

Except those other characters are called non-player-characters because, gasp, they're not the player character.

[Osvir]

Is the Bhaalspawn really a player character though? In most ways I would like to say "No" (you only give the character a "Face" basically), because it is Bioware's character and we are just following their red thread that they've created. That's why I thought it more fun to create the PC in a multiplayer game (someone following the Bhaalspawn) and those characters that I made would continue the story without the Bhaalspawn, they would try to figure out the conspiracy and try to figure out everything that's happening without the Bhaalspawn.

 

It is also way more easier to roleplay a character that you've created rather than something the developer has created.

[Dream]

Is the Bhaalspawn really a player character though? In most ways I would like to say "No" (you only give the character a "Face" basically), because it is Bioware's character and we are just following their red thread that they've created. That's why I thought it more fun to create the PC in a multiplayer game (someone following the Bhaalspawn) and those characters that I made would continue the story without the Bhaalspawn, they would try to figure out the conspiracy and try to figure out everything that's happening without the Bhaalspawn.

 

It is also way more easier to roleplay a character that you've created rather than something the developer has created.

 

It's a player character with a heritage. It's the same thing as being born black/white/asian/gay/straight/whatever. There are things about you that you can't change but that doesn't mean you're not you.

[Sacred_Path]

@Osvir, do you have any idea how hard it would be to write any kind of story arc that would adapt to the protagonist dying anywhere during it?

 

Insanely hard. There are going to be enough weird story hiccups anyway in a game with free-form parts. Hell, there often are even if it's not so free-form; The Witcher's Chapter 2 for example became almost impossible to follow if you didn't do things in the "right" order. And that's a near-linear game, albeit with branches to the narrative.

 

It simply depends on wether you make one character or the party the protagonist, though. If the story is advanced by the party as a whole, any specific character within it is replaceable.

This would go against the BG/ P:T grain but hey, they've done a whole set of tweaks that separates this game from its spiritual antecessors. Why not replace the inferior writing (that is entirely static as it's one big rimjob given to one character) with something more flexible and engaging (where "the quest" is actually at the heart of it, not the well-being of "the protagonist")? :D

[Osvir]

Is the Bhaalspawn really a player character though? In most ways I would like to say "No" (you only give the character a "Face" basically), because it is Bioware's character and we are just following their red thread that they've created. That's why I thought it more fun to create the PC in a multiplayer game (someone following the Bhaalspawn) and those characters that I made would continue the story without the Bhaalspawn, they would try to figure out the conspiracy and try to figure out everything that's happening without the Bhaalspawn.

 

It is also way more easier to roleplay a character that you've created rather than something the developer has created.

 

It's a player character with a heritage. It's the same thing as being born black/white/asian/gay/straight/whatever. There are things about you that you can't change but that doesn't mean you're not you.

 

You can change It has been implied that the cultural background in P:E is going to be definable at character creation, which implies that your character can have a different heritage. Already differing from BG and getting closer to DA:O and Arcanum, so depending on the cultural background my character could possibly be a "Nobody". The "Chosen One" for the Event, but not for the unfolding.

 

Is the main character really the only one who can defeat the Darkspawn? Ferelden would probably have been lost to the Darkspawn, but other nations would repress it I believe. Grey Wardens stationed elsewhere etc. etc. same thing in Baldur's Gate 1 specifically, your character holds no real importance to finishing the Quest and other characters could have gone on without the character.

Edited December 27, 2012 by Osvir

[GrinningReaper659]

It simply depends on wether you make one character or the party the protagonist, though. If the story is advanced by the party as a whole, any specific character within it is replaceable.

This would go against the BG/ P:T grain but hey, they've done a whole set of tweaks that separates this game from its spiritual antecessors. Why not replace the inferior writing (that is entirely static as it's one big rimjob given to one character) with something more flexible and engaging (where "the quest" is actually at the heart of it, not the well-being of "the protagonist")? :D

 

This is completely absurd. Why is it that you are incapable of seeing an individual perspective as anything other than stroking the ego of the player? This is our natural perspective as humans and is therefore the most fitting one for a role playing game. Pulling the strings/occupying the minds of a group of people is not role playing, as there is no individual role being played by the player in that scenario, it makes no sense for a role playing game. What you're talking about is effectively a game where you control a group of people without really playing the role of any of them...

 

You also seem to think that a game which is played from an individual perspective inherently lacks good story, which makes no sense. The story can be good as any story can be, whether you're experiencing it from an individual perspective or not.

 

Anyway, as Sharp_one said, this topic is pretty irrelevant at this point and, as you said, this is becoming somewhat retarded.

[Osvir]

Because it is Ego stroking the player, obviously *skims thread*

[Failion]

I always found games that emphasize more on a party of companions overcoming a ordeal far more appealing then games with one main character when it comes to ego stroking. Everyone has their preferences. I believe team oriented stuff is more epic and grand. Even in real life playing basketball with your friends and you knowing their strengths and weaknesses against enemy team. From watching hollywood action flicks,war movies, I find it more appealing in these games where a party of heroes is getting slaughtered 1 by 1 and its really glorious when they finally prevail or even go all down.

[Osvir]

@GrinningReaper659: Likewise, on the other side of Yin (where you stand), there's us who prefer Yang which is Ego stroking too. Endless debate and I will not try to sway your Ego above my own so... *bows*

 

Pretty much this:

I always found games that emphasize more on a party of companions overcoming a ordeal far more appealing then games with one main character when it comes to ego stroking. Everyone has their preferences. I believe team oriented stuff is more epic and grand. Even in real life playing basketball with your friends and you knowing their strengths and weaknesses against enemy team. From watching hollywood action flicks,war movies, I find it more appealing in these games where a party of heroes is getting slaughtered 1 by 1 and its really glorious when they finally prevail or even go all down.

[Malekith]

@Osvir, do you have any idea how hard it would be to write any kind of story arc that would adapt to the protagonist dying anywhere during it?

 

Insanely hard. There are going to be enough weird story hiccups anyway in a game with free-form parts. Hell, there often are even if it's not so free-form; The Witcher's Chapter 2 for example became almost impossible to follow if you didn't do things in the "right" order. And that's a near-linear game, albeit with branches to the narrative.

 

It simply depends on wether you make one character or the party the protagonist, though. If the story is advanced by the party as a whole, any specific character within it is replaceable.

This would go against the BG/ P:T grain but hey, they've done a whole set of tweaks that separates this game from its spiritual antecessors. Why not replace the inferior writing (that is entirely static as it's one big rimjob given to one character) with something more flexible and engaging (where "the quest" is actually at the heart of it, not the well-being of "the protagonist")? :D

This would go against the BG/ P:T grain

And if you consider that BG2 and P:T are the 2 most beloved RPGs (and arguably the best of all time), this would be a mistake. Those 2 games are the reason Obsidian was able too make 4 million$

they've done a whole set of tweaks that separates this game from its spiritual antecessors

mechanically.Because they wouldn't use D&D rules that was kind of a given. But they promised an IE spiritual succesor and for the majority that means the type of story,companions,atmosphere... The "feel" of the game and not the mechanics.

As the mechanics are already different, if the feel of the game is different too there would be a ****storm and the kickstarter attempt would be a failure

IWD had better combat,better art(from BG series at least,P:T art was also great) but there was a reason why they are the less popular of the IE games

Edited December 27, 2012 by Malekith

[GrinningReaper659]

@GrinningReaper659: Likewise, on the other side of Yin (where you stand), there's us who prefer Yang which is Ego stroking too. Endless debate and I will not try to sway your Ego above my own so... *bows*

 

Pretty much this:

I always found games that emphasize more on a party of companions overcoming a ordeal far more appealing then games with one main character when it comes to ego stroking. Everyone has their preferences. I believe team oriented stuff is more epic and grand. Even in real life playing basketball with your friends and you knowing their strengths and weaknesses against enemy team. From watching hollywood action flicks,war movies, I find it more appealing in these games where a party of heroes is getting slaughtered 1 by 1 and its really glorious when they finally prevail or even go all down.

 

@Osvir I don't think I've been making my point clearly enough. I crave deep, well thought-out NPCs and I want their personal stories to matter in a game like this. I don't want silent companions, I want complex interactions with all the other characters involved in the story, including the party-joinable NPCs. In the post you quoted, Failion mentions that stories that center around a party are more grand and that playing basketball with friends is more interesting than playing alone. This does not contradict my stance at all. The story can be focused on your party and still you wouldn't need to be(/control) your entire party. Yes, you'd rather play basketball with friends, but it is still you playing with them, you're not occupying your own consciousness as well as theirs; in fact, that would essentially be playing alone... Also, I don't prefer the "chosen one" backstory for the main character that is so popular in CRPGs, I prefer that the main character starts out as a nobody and is defined by you, the player, throughout the game.

 

However, none of these things require the perspective to not be an individual one, this is the only point on which we are disagreeing. I truly think that taking away the individual perspective turns any game into something other than an RPG. If you're not playing a role anymore, and you are instead just controlling several different characters, I have a hard time seeing it as a roleplaying game.

 

Just wanted to make sure I had clearly stated my point. As you said, this is an endless debate as it's a perspective preference issue.

[Elerond]

They have said that they want to make expansions or sequels where you continue as the same character...how does that work then if he/she's dead? how many games could be the story of someone who died ages ago?

.

In ME2 Shepard dies at least once and there is possibility that he or she is dead in end of the story. But still there is ME3 with Shepard as main character .

On serious tone game should come to game over when player character/s die if there is story, lore or game mechanical reason why game continues, for example PS where main character is nearly immortal or Fable 2 where game mechanics prevent PC to die or game world has resurrection in some form (like ME2 and Forgotten Realms games) Npcs are not player characters even if you hire them from adventurers hall. So their living or dying should have no bearing to if game ends or continues. At max they could resurrect player characters if there is such possibility in the game world. Changing non-player characters to player characters is not something that I myself don't see to fit very good in RPGs. As it make role playing very hard and it usually causes story to fall apart.

[motorizer]

They have said that they want to make expansions or sequels where you continue as the same character...how does that work then if he/she's dead? how many games could be the story of someone who died ages ago?

.

In ME2 Shepard dies at least once and there is possibility that he or she is dead in end of the story. But still there is ME3 with Shepard as main character .

On serious tone game should come to game over when player character/s die if there is story, lore or game mechanical reason why game continues, for example PS where main character is nearly immortal or Fable 2 where game mechanics prevent PC to die or game world has resurrection in some form (like ME2 and Forgotten Realms games) Npcs are not player characters even if you hire them from adventurers hall. So their living or dying should have no bearing to if game ends or continues. At max they could resurrect player characters if there is such possibility in the game world. Changing non-player characters to player characters is not something that I myself don't see to fit very good in RPGs. As it make role playing very hard and it usually causes story to fall apart.

I never got shepherd killed in mass effect 2 how did that work in ME3?

I don't like resurrection in games..its silly and renders death a mere inconvenience rather than something to be feared

[Failion]

@GrinningReaper659: Likewise, on the other side of Yin (where you stand), there's us who prefer Yang which is Ego stroking too. Endless debate and I will not try to sway your Ego above my own so... *bows*

 

Pretty much this:

I always found games that emphasize more on a party of companions overcoming a ordeal far more appealing then games with one main character when it comes to ego stroking. Everyone has their preferences. I believe team oriented stuff is more epic and grand. Even in real life playing basketball with your friends and you knowing their strengths and weaknesses against enemy team. From watching hollywood action flicks,war movies, I find it more appealing in these games where a party of heroes is getting slaughtered 1 by 1 and its really glorious when they finally prevail or even go all down.

 

@Osvir I don't think I've been making my point clearly enough. I crave deep, well thought-out NPCs and I want their personal stories to matter in a game like this. I don't want silent companions, I want complex interactions with all the other characters involved in the story, including the party-joinable NPCs. In the post you quoted, Failion mentions that stories that center around a party are more grand and that playing basketball with friends is more interesting than playing alone. This does not contradict my stance at all. The story can be focused on your party and still you wouldn't need to be(/control) your entire party. Yes, you'd rather play basketball with friends, but it is still you playing with them, you're not occupying your own consciousness as well as theirs; in fact, that would essentially be playing alone... Also, I don't prefer the "chosen one" backstory for the main character that is so popular in CRPGs, I prefer that the main character starts out as a nobody and is defined by you, the player, throughout the game.

 

However, none of these things require the perspective to not be an individual one, this is the only point on which we are disagreeing. I truly think that taking away the individual perspective turns any game into something other than an RPG. If you're not playing a role anymore, and you are instead just controlling several different characters, I have a hard time seeing it as a roleplaying game.

 

Just wanted to make sure I had clearly stated my point. As you said, this is an endless debate as it's a perspective preference issue.

 

What are you not connected to the hive mind??? I agree it is much more quality experience when the party members are created by the developers and are well done. I can get attached to player built companions too if they have a good soundboard.

[Althernai]

the "nature of companions" (which we know very little about) doesn't dictate that they will all stand around mute while the entire dialogue and narrative rests only on the main character.

No, of course not -- as I already said, I fully expect the companions to speak up when the player says or does something that is relevant to them. However, the fact that they have a personality does mean that the player cannot speak as the companion. For example, suppose the companion is a priest of some faith and the player (speaking as the main character) decides to torch some sacred site of this faith for some reason. If the game is well written, then the companion should disagree with this decision and maybe even try to oppose the protagonist. However, if there is no main character and the only party member left is this companion, then there is no sane way for the player to enact the same decision. Now, in theory, they could script for this (i.e. allow decisions based on which party members you currently have), but the combinatorics of this are monstrous and there is simply no way they have the resources to do that.

 

This could unfortunately be true, but still be bad design. However I don't think it will come to that, because deaths are permanent in P:E and I don't think that you could carry the same party through the entire game on the higher difficulties. So they will have to find some compromise between what the companions offer (which I would expect is mostly dialogue) and what you will experience when you don't have Ai companions in the party.

I think most people will not lose companions to random deaths. It's only in Trial of Iron mode that this is a serious possibility -- other than that, people will just reload.

 

It simply depends on wether you make one character or the party the protagonist, though. If the story is advanced by the party as a whole, any specific character within it is replaceable.

This would go against the BG/ P:T grain but hey, they've done a whole set of tweaks that separates this game from its spiritual antecessors. Why not replace the inferior writing (that is entirely static as it's one big rimjob given to one character) with something more flexible and engaging (where "the quest" is actually at the heart of it, not the well-being of "the protagonist")? :D

It is virtually impossible to tell a good story without well defined characters (there are a few exceptions, but they are mostly not for mass consumption). Western RPGs mostly work around this by having one character defined by the player and the rest defined by the designers. I don't see them deviating from this because it almost inevitably results in a weaker story. Look at the Infinity Engine games: there's a reason the Kickstarter promised the combat from IWD and the writing from PS:T. It's much easier to do a great story when you mostly fix the protagonist (a-la PS:T) than when you only have a "hook" (a-la the Bhaalspawn in the BG series) or with nothing at all (like in IWD).

[Cultist]

Good times with might & Magic 7, where you can turn your characters into Lich.

[Sacred_Path]

This is completely absurd. Why is it that you are incapable of seeing an individual perspective as anything other than stroking the ego of the player? This is our natural perspective as humans and is therefore the most fitting one for a role playing game. Pulling the strings/occupying the minds of a group of people is not role playing, as there is no individual role being played by the player in that scenario, it makes no sense for a role playing game.

 

So you think all ©RPGs that came before and told the story around a party rather than an individual had it wrong? Because "our natural perspective" wasn't considered? Just a question, have you ever been part of a group with a common goal where your individual condition and reasons were secondary?

 

It is virtually impossible to tell a good story without well defined characters (there are a few exceptions, but they are mostly not for mass consumption). Western RPGs mostly work around this by having one character defined by the player and the rest defined by the designers. I don't see them deviating from this because it almost inevitably results in a weaker story.

 

Have you played games/ read books/ seen movies where the focus isn't on a single character? I have. There's nothing inherently inferior about this approach. OTOH, using a single character's often very limited range of motivations (U killed my G0ri0n!) can make for a very lackluster game.

[GrinningReaper659]

This is completely absurd. Why is it that you are incapable of seeing an individual perspective as anything other than stroking the ego of the player? This is our natural perspective as humans and is therefore the most fitting one for a role playing game. Pulling the strings/occupying the minds of a group of people is not role playing, as there is no individual role being played by the player in that scenario, it makes no sense for a role playing game.

 

So you think all ©RPGs that came before and told the story around a party rather than an individual had it wrong? Because "our natural perspective" wasn't considered? Just a question, have you ever been part of a group with a common goal where your individual condition and reasons were secondary?

 

It is virtually impossible to tell a good story without well defined characters (there are a few exceptions, but they are mostly not for mass consumption). Western RPGs mostly work around this by having one character defined by the player and the rest defined by the designers. I don't see them deviating from this because it almost inevitably results in a weaker story.

 

Have you played games/ read books/ seen movies where the focus isn't on a single character? I have. There's nothing inherently inferior about this approach. OTOH, using a single character's often very limited range of motivations (U killed my G0ri0n!) can make for a very lackluster game.

 

You are still completely missing my point... Have I ever been a part of a group where my personal desires weren't of prime importance? Obviously yes, but it was still me as myself + each of them individually as themselves, not me as both myself and them. An individual occupying multiple individual consciousnesses doesn't make sense and it certainly has nothing to do with broadening the depth or complexity of a story.

 

As I keep saying, a story that focuses on a group doesn't require you to be every member of that group. In fact, that's a much more ego-centric perspective when you feel the need to control every member of the group as opposed to just an individual, you're essentially playing alone if you're trying to role-play every character in the story and, if you're just controlling them and not really roleplaying them then, as I was saying, it's no longer a role playing game. Anything that separates the player from playing an individual role in the story further takes the game away from roleplaying. This has nothing to do with story focus, the overall story can be about your entire group, or about your enemies, or about the world at large, but you should still be viewing it from the individual perspective of the role that you are playing.

[Nonek]

I'd rather my protagonist be an integral part of the games narrative structure (though not a pawn of prophecy or chosen one) through whatever means, be that a silver shard embedded in his heart or what have you, and also that my companions all be disposable at almost any time. So personally i'd have to vote in the negative to this idea.

[Sacred_Path]

You are still completely missing my point... Have I ever been a part of a group where my personal desires weren't of prime importance? Obviously yes, but it was still me as myself + each of them individually as themselves, not me as both myself and them. An individual occupying multiple individual consciousnesses doesn't make sense and it certainly has nothing to do with broadening the depth or complexity of a story.

 

I must say again, have you ever played party based games (it seems you haven't, or else you could wrap your mind around the concept)?

 

As for it impacting the depth of the story... I think basing narratives on only one character is often the lazy way out. Your motivations don't need to make much sense or be very convincing, because they're yours. If you're told that your character goes after the Big Evil One on not much more than a whim, that's fine, because it's your whim.

 

As I keep saying, a story that focuses on a group doesn't require you to be every member of that group. In fact, that's a much more ego-centric perspective when you feel the need to control every member of the group as opposed to just an individual, you're essentially playing alone if you're trying to role-play every character in the story and, if you're just controlling them and not really roleplaying them then, as I was saying, it's no longer a role playing game.

 

You didn't get my point. What I'd like to see is a story that involves all your party members, but they will clearly have minds and agendas of their own (that part has been confirmed, and can be expected nowadays). Quite the opposite of you simply inhabiting your party members' minds.