Found this on Gamasutra and figured it might provide a good read for some of the writers here. Heres the link: http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060426/noyle_01.shtml I hope this is the right area to post this in. If not, sorry. [Edited by - Koolchamp on April 28, 2006 4:06:28 PM]

This is the correct forum to post this in. [smile]

Those with an aversion to copy 'n' paste can use this link. ;)

The author makes several good points. But do the rules (and examples presented) about preserving agency of the player infer that the PC should always be mute (except perhaps when the player makes a multichoice/keyword selection in a conversation menu)? Actually I don't necessarily oppose this, but it seems like a quite hard ruleset to comply with.

It's one of those situational rules, but for the most part, FPS especially, it's a good one to abide by.

I think the RPGs that do a good job of breaking this rule avoid forcing the player to stick with one particular character throughout the game, example: Final Fantasy 6. The player controls a variety of characters and is never really forced to feel he or she "is" one of those characters.

I think that there are really two types of playable characters, the 'avatar' which had no personality until the player creates it through dialogue and other choices, and the 'role' which is a character with fully defined name, personality, and dialogue whose shoes the player is asked to step into for the duration of the game. I think both kinds can make for good games - avatars work well in interactive story games and other highly interactive games like strategy and sim games, while roles are good if you want to tell a powerful linear story with a particular moral. My only suggested rule would be don't mix the two. If you're creating a role, don't give the player dialogue choices and story branches, and maybe don't even give the player the option to change the PC's name. If you're creating an avatar don't set up the plot to force a certain morality on them, or a romance with a certain NPC; do give them lots of dialogue choices and other in-game choices by which the player can express their personality and the game will respond to the personality they choose.

Quote: Original post by sunandshadow
I think that there are really two types of playable characters, the 'avatar' which had no personality until the player creates it through dialogue and other choices, and the 'role' which is a character with fully defined name, personality, and dialogue whose shoes the player is asked to step into for the duration of the game. I think both kinds can make for good games - avatars work well in interactive story games and other highly interactive games like strategy and sim games, while roles are good if you want to tell a powerful linear story with a particular moral. My only suggested rule would be don't mix the two. If you're creating a role, don't give the player dialogue choices and story branches, and maybe don't even give the player the option to change the PC's name. If you're creating an avatar don't set up the plot to force a certain morality on them, or a romance with a certain NPC; do give them lots of dialogue choices and other in-game choices by which the player can express their personality and the game will respond to the personality they choose.

Mixing the two is actually very possible, but only under specific circumstances. In my upcoming project, I plan to create four different characters who can be controlled by the player, but only one at a time. How will it work? By defining within the context of the universe who the player is, and who the characters are, and not letting the two cross.

But you're always mixing the two to some degree. If the player has no choice in playing the role, it isn't a videogame. And it is impossible for the player to control their character entirely (there's always something you can't do). It's just difficult to mix the two in equal quantities without being jarring.