There seems to be two main points of view in games. 1) Make the player feel they are actually immersed within the game and project the player''s personality into the game 2) Have the player control a character who has a well developed personality seperate from the player and the character''s personality and decisions create the plot, not the player''s. I want to focus on the second point of view. Because the character within the game has a unique personality there will be conflict between the player and character. Problems such as likability arise as a result. (How many bad games have horrible lead characters that are total tools) I think this conflict between the player and main character is a great opportunity to add some really funny and creative aspects into a game. For example, the game allows you to pick different outfits for the character. You decide to dress the male character in pink with lots of feathers. The character takes one look in the mirror starts cursing and attempts to take off the outfit. The player can force the character to wear the clothing by putting it back on him despite his protests. The NPC''s will then ridicule the character for dressing that way. Another example, Your character is discussing something with a very large, mean NPC. You decide you want the character to slap the large man (with obvious consequences). As a result your character tries to hold his hand back. He starts sweating and shaking as he attempts in vain to keep the rouge hand from striking the man. In the end he slaps the man and gets a beating for his trouble. The basic premise is to develop the main character in small and possibly funny ways. The player will give the character commands and they react in a way that describes their personality. This is a step beyond the SIMS (but within a different genre) because the character doesn''t simply follow commands blindly.

it''s realy cool.
but it only makes players laugh once.

Thats the thing, it wouldn''t be just a one time thing. The player would have the opportunity to do many inappropriate things if they wish.

The player could dress the character in drag and be able to access areas off limits to men. They could insult dangerous people, blow kisses at old ladies, etc. etc. These actions are not the focus of the game and the consequences are not always desirable but the player can fool around a little without it being part of the plot.

The player would have limited ability to screw around during parts were the suspense is being built up or the content is more serious but for all the wandering and talking that many games have it would be fun to be able to mess around a bit.

In Sims, when the Sims feel their furniture etc is ugly they will turn towards the player shouting and waving their hands.This work well as the player of Sims is fairly removed from the characters in a Tamagochi fashion. Closer ties between player and character would probably make the jokes you mention annoying.

Sounds good, but I think the *player* should exist somehow in the story. It would explain exactly where the conflict comes from.

For instance, maybe the character is an agent, and the Player is supposed to be his commander, talking to him through an earpiece. Or maybe the Player is the ghost of a deceased friend, helping the character to avenge your death.

Monkey Island anyone? =) Theese jokes were partly done there, and you can''t call that series a failure? =)

quote:
...and you can''t call that series a failure? =)

most definitely not!


Indeterminatus

--si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses--

Yeah, I thought about trying to give a rational reason for why you can control the character but most 3rd person games don''t attempt to do this, nor should they have to.

The reason that customization and multiple paths are the main focus in games right now is because those two things allow the player to feel more connected to the playable character.

Allowing the character to react to your actions just might make the character seem more alive, somewhat independent. This severs the aforementioned connection slightly, but I don''t think the gamer would mind too much.

In my opinion entertainment should always rank ahead of immersion and realism.

Explaining why the character is like a puppet under your control seems pointless.

Normally I''d agree with you. But your game would have the unique distinction of the character being both independant and yet interacting with the Player.

If the player has to force his desires upon the character...who may complain or otherwise show discontent, then it''s evident you have 2 different personalities happening in the game world.

Normal 3rd-person games are like "Puppet and Puppeteer". But yours wouldn''t be because the character would apparently have his own will (even if ultimately he couldn''t act on it).

The only way I feel that you''d be OK to not explain the relationship is if your game is more of a cartoon or light-hearted comedy. Like how Bugs Bunny or Ferris Bueller would often do an aside to talk to the audience.

Yes, the game would probably have to have a cartoonish style to work well.