Hi, I just want oher people''s opinions on this, since I don''t really have one of my own. Is it better for a game to have a highly-developed, unique main character (the one that the character is supposed to identify with), or a generic character that the player can "adapt" to fit with the way they want to play. Examples of highly-developed characters are - Squall from FFVIII (actually any main character from FF series, excluding the first one) - Sion from the Bouncer (prolly the best example) - Solid Snake as you can see, highly-developed does not mean "not-cliche". It just means that the character has his own personality, his own past that influences his actions, whatnot. Examples of generic characters are - Gauntlet characters - Diablo characters - Link from the Zelda series The first two characters are completely generated by the player, allowing her to fill in the gaps and even shape the character''s personality (if there is a chance for personality-shaping given). The third shows a case where the player''s concept of the character basically picks up from the start of the game. Link is pretty much your average boy-who-must-save-the-world, and his actions and whatnot don''t stem from a complex and emotionally jarring back history and deep personality. I know that factor in an answer to this question is the genre of the game. The genre I''m thinking about is RPG/Action/Adventure games.

I''d go for the developed charactor...I know lots of players like to "design" there own charactor (the way they look, etc...the charactor class Diablo type thing)...but to me...this just creates..as you said..genaric charactors..that don''t really seem to exist in the game world...NPCs still pretty much treat the low IQ barbarion just like the wise wizard, etc...so the particular charactor that the player "creates" doesn''t have a "real" past or any pre-defined parsonallity...and in a RPG the character thus is treated little more then as a tool, not a "real" character

If the game enviroment responds alot to how i created my character(Arcanum is a nice example, people mad fun of you if you had low INT, and commented on your clothing) i prefer generating my own character. But if all my stats are only related to combat, id prefer a character with predefined "personality".

The personalities is pointed by :
-something about the stat. but a different characters in same cases can have the same stat.
-The image, a big guys is very different to a "gay" elf.
-The speciality. The main characters is common the be a "cavalry", a space only fighters with some magic powers. Anothers players can have the speciality for cure, for special magic powers, for only physic power.
-How role they play in the story. In FF8, Rinoa play a specific role, also Squall play another role. Even more, the story tell about the authism to Squall.
-The interaction within the group is very important. For example, in Chrono Trigger, Magus play a role of bad, a enemy of Frog.

I certainly have an opinion but it seems very different than the popular opinion. I like the idea of playing the game... if I want a story, I''ll read a book or watch a movie. I like my character to be a "tool" (as MSW put it) to manipulate the world. Perhaps this is somewhat of the popular opinion... FPS''s give no identity to their main characters (except Half-life, but the identity was loose although the story was solid). I enjoy non-linear games with a character that is nothing more than stats. It leaves a lot of room for strategy.. and replayability (like Diablo (I & II)... I know people that have played that for years non-stop!) In a story game, once beaten ya never seem to pick it up again.

If you are thinking of designing or creating a game, you should look to what you really want your player to get out of it. I really can''t personally say which is better. On the whole I think the both are great... look at the age old game of Myst... the player was tied into a character and a storyline... and it was a huge success.

Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view

Get Tranced!

I agree with Ziphnor -- it all depends what''s put into the game. In Pen and Paper RPGs, stats tend to define a LOT of stuff about the character, and the GM tends to make sure that NPCs react to that accordingly. If a game has this type of stuff built in (a la Arcanum), then a player-built character isn''t so "generic" after all. If people react differently to the character based on various attributes, and play differs based on the same, then there is no such thing as a "generic" character. However, if a Charismatic Elven Bard and a Bumbling Stupid Ogre get the same exact reaction from the Pixie-people, then having different roles are important only in determining what type of tank you''re using (granted, you can LIKE that kind of game -- Lord knows I''ve been playing Wiz8 for a while now with just that type of feel, but it is nice to feel that how you build your character will drastically affect your play experience, which is why I like both that and Arcanum).

I''m working on designing an RPG, and I''m thinking about adding "history" to the character, which affects where they start, how much money they start with, and who their allegiances are with... all of this, plus how the PC acts, will affect how people react to him more than a "Charisma" score. (I also will probably take a page out of Arcanum''s book and use the "visible" stats, such as Intelligence and Strength, to affect different things, such as which quests they''ll get and who will talk to them)

-Chris

quote: Original post by coderx75
In a story game, once beaten ya never seem to pick it up again.

I don''t quite agree with you. You''d be right if the storyline that was given was very linear and had no hidden stuff, but this is rarely the case these days. It seems that developers love to throw in a bunch of hidden goodies that you can''t get to the first time you play the game (you''re just not good enough yet), but when you replay, you can use your character with his/her finishing stats and you may get to see some bits you couldn''t.

An alternate method is much more mundane: use the new character and try to find stuff you missed last time.

A way to keep interest that doesn''t really fall into this category, but may be considered replay-ability none-the-less: Every time you finish the game, you get a new character to use for the next time around (or perhaps the story is slightly different for this character).


George D. Filiotis
Are you in support of the ban of Dihydrogen Monoxide? You should be!

I think it depends on wether you want to give the player a game or a story.

I think that a well defined player character does the most good in a game where the players influence over the story and outcome of the game (other than win or lose) is minimal. Ex: Final Fantasy, Broken Sword, Half-Life.
If the game has strict objectives it better feature a well developed character with motivation to reach those objectives and with whom the player can identify with from the start.

On the other hand, a game where the player has a large amount of freedom (or rather the illusion of it) and where the actions of the player could perhaps even change the course of the game, would probably benefit more from a faceless character that the player slowly molds after himself and his own characteristics throughout the game. This does however require a game with the ability to encourage the player towards choosing his own paths through it. Ex: Daggerfall, Black and White, Privateer.

IMHO none of these "game forms" are superior. What you choose should depend on wether you want to guide the player through a story of your own design. Showing them through the world like a really immersive book or if you want to give them their own story to create and explore.

http://envy.nu/anykey

Arcanum? Bah. Fallout 1 & 2, I felt, were better examples of generic characters (and Arcanum''s SPECIAL statistic system is Fallout-based, too.)

I prefer generic-character games greatly, as they leave more to the imagination. Especially in those games that talk and talk about backstory, but don''t freaking tell you what the backstory IS! I mean, I can think of a couple games that require you to read a pretty long (one was about 45 pages) backstory to even UNDERSTAND the game. Not fun.

Hmmm... I don''t quite know how you guys got to where you are but here''s my answer to the original topic.

This is from a Game Developer Magazine issue article from a few years on character design. The author (who made Lara Croft) specifies the need for a generic and specific character based on the player''s role in the game. Generally you want to create a generic character when the player is supposed to "be" that player in the game, this is why RPG and 1st person point of view characters are generally defined as such. The specific characters belong in 3rd-person point of view games, where the player is controlling a character but is not connected to that character in any way. I don''t have the article before me otherwise I could be a bit more eloquent but there it is.

_________________________________________________________________

Drew Sikora
A.K.A. Gaiiden

ICQ #: 70449988
AOLIM: DarkPylat

Blade Edge Software
Staff Member, GDNet
Public Relations, Game Institute

3-time Contributing author, Game Design Methods , Charles River Media (coming GDC 2002)
Online column - Design Corner at Pixelate

NJ IGDA Chapter - NJ developers unite!! [Chapter Home | Chapter Forum]