Between the point of Hawk/Geralt and a non RPG like Uncharted, and that's the classic JRPG style where the character is defined and you don't have much choice beyond mechanical customizations and side quests.
I think my favourite spot on the spectrum is 'the game defcides the character's past, but the player decides the character's present (and possibly their future)'. This means that the PC has a defined backstory and starting place within the world, but the player has a lot of latitude to decide how they will act right now. This includes the uses of amnesia that I actually like (i.e. Planescape Torment, Disco Elysium and, from what I've heard, KotOR 1, although I admit that I've never played it). In most games with amnesia, it's used as an excuse to have the character's backstory not matter at all, which I'm not a big fan of. However, in the games I mentioned, the character's past is extremely important to the story, and amnesia instead serves as a reason why the character might act differently now than they did in the past.
This was a good one. I enjoyed listening to you go over the entire spectrum. For my personal preferences, I like games all over the spectrum. Whether or not the game is good isn’t dependent on player freedom but on how successful the game is at fulfilling its own ambitions. If it’s a walking simulator, I want to enjoy the environment I’m walking around in. If the focus is on the story, I’m fine with giving up some autonomy for a good story. Same the other way around. Getting conflicting messages within the game bugs me. For example, in Mass Effect we are allocated certain freedoms but because someone thought Shep should be horny in MEII I’m forced to navigate flirtatious dialogue with Jacob. Flirting with everyone else is an active choice but a default setting with this one character. It’s like they’re saying “I know we gave you choices, but you’re supposed to pick this one here.”
personally I never had a hard time navigating the flirts since it was always a singular choice of the 3-6 choices. Fundementally the issue is more of clarity from the wheel that has imporved with images and a warning label that a choice would lead to a serious consquence shuch as locking in a romance
@@ConnorLonergan Have you played Mass Effect as femme-Shep? “I’m more interested in just talking for a bit.” Ugh. I’ve successfully navigated the conversations and made Jacob my bro but the romantic tension the devs wanted us to feel is 100% unavoidable. She initiates every conversation using a flirtatious tone.
Thank you so much for the video. It's great to see the insight from a developer who worked on these types of games. I would argue that Bioware games have always been better when they defined the protagonist a bit more. As you said, it give the developers more opportunities to use the characters in the storytelling. Which Bioware is really good an known for. I think if every Bioware protagonist was voiced not much would change. As they are already pretty defined. I don't think DAO would change a lot if the Warden was voiced.
@@MarkDarrahalso I just want to sat that I completely agree with the last segment. What is the best type of character is what the developer is trying to do. I feel like people don't understand that which character type is better is what the game is trying to do, and not that one is better than the other.
To extend on that i would reframe the problem a bit: players, in interactive story telling and writing, have an issue of exposition. Character need an introduction to function in a narrative, which slot them in narrative role within the ongoing arcs of the story. The spectrum of tabula rasa to defined, is one way to adress that. Tabula rasa are difficult because there need mechanics to introduce the player, as a character into the story world, to the narrative. Stat sheet, moral choices, factions, affinities, flags, are way to handle exposing a blank state character to the narrative, like we have need to expose the world and character to the player. But **typically** these mechanics are seen from a simulationist perspective, ie branching consequences to actions, which frustrate a lot the narrative, since the branching factor dilutes the intentionality. This lead to bad narrative pattern like on the spot dilemma, which stop all progression until the player make a choice about a problem he just encountered. Mass effect soften this considerably, by having the dilemma asked at the beginning of a quest, that walkthrough the pro and cons of the **subjects**, and let the player answer at the end, once he got all of the exposition. Reframing this problem as exposition allows to bridge the gap between narrative and simulation, as it imply the aesthetics of exposing the player to the world is **the quizz** ie that each narrative situation isn't just branching, it's directly questioning the player who he is through metaphorical subjects and topics, then we regularly tally the response to give back the world answers back to the player. Ie it becomes player *character* driven. But that's not enough, we need to unify plot and character to control the branching factor. Character and plot driven narrative has been an old debates, but I posit that stakes is the true foundation, stakes define what actions and plot is relevant, and it pressure character to take action. When the character is undefined or random, stakes still keep the arc compelling by keeping meaning of story coherent. What is stakes mechanically? Well it's simply progression toward failure and success. If you are poisoned, you need to seek for the cure or die, how you or character handle this situation is meaningful. And since it's a progression, we can tie events to the state of progress, to make the world react to your actions. Even uf you fool around, character might become increasingly concern, disillusioned or wax poetic about existence, because the current stakes define the narrative context. Stakes as mechanic allow to better structure both tabula rasa and defined character in interactive narrative, by allowing to create plot point that are quizz tracking each characters in context were **any** action is given meaning by the subject of the current context. I have a bigger graph breakdown that deconstruct this. That's just an explanation of some of it's part lol😅 You can tell I'm unemployed by the time spent in that comment 😂
@@MarkDarrah only if the world doesn't push back. Think about it, a pure tabula rasa would have no connection, and thus cannot leverage the one necessary for subsistance, which is a default external stake for these characters, they would need to start entangling with the world to keep existing, just like being unemployed push me to find a job. The world should provide push and pull such that danger and opportunity funnel any character toward a defined story.
Great video! I can enjoy all types or protagonists, but I find that (with exceptions ofc) games that are more on the blank slate side have a tendency to disappoint me a little since I build up a character in my head only to then realise that the dialog options don't actually offer what I imagined my character to be
I didn't understand the connection between dialog quantity and play style until this. I hope current and future developers find this series of vids. It's a college course on management in general and game development on a micro level. Thanks Mark.
Incredibly interesting to see the thought process on approaching such a decision. But, to be really honest, you had me at "tabula rasa." Latin rocks. :-) Quick edit to add: I much prefer less reactivity with better story telling vs more reactivity and sub-par AI storytelling.
cool video! I'd actually been thinking about this a lot lately as I'm curious how far into a game you could push set characterization. like at the beginning you choose a simple blurb backstory then get to retroactively fill it out more through tracked dialogue options that have consequences as the game progresses. that'd require a ton of extra writing tho and there's always a chance that more rp focused players would have initially thought up a character that your system doesn't allow for anyway. be that as it may, i have no interest in any story that's written or expanded through machine generated content. even putting the ethics aside, id much rather have a more limited but meaningful expression of who i imagine my character to be than to infinitely generate particulars that will never mean anything.
I couldn’t agree more with your final thoughts. When I play Skyrim, I’m invested in the world, because it’s essentially just me in it even though I’m not a Dragonborn or anything. When I play Mass Effect, I’m invested in Commander Shepard. It’s super important to make the frameworks you offer the player (like in most BW games) easily relatable and relevant to the character. When I pick the War Hero background, that’s seeded into how Shepard should make choices and behave. They’re still my choices, but I’m having to “immersion-check” them against what’s believable for the character.
I'd highlight a few examples of Tabula Rasa on an extreme end. And that's the likes of XCOM and Wizardry. On an "old school" end, is the Wizardry scale of character creation. And that's a mix of "make a party of characters" (or names) to send an army or party with. But with not much detail to impart/remember, which leads to more immersion to a 'Tabula Rasa' scale. On the other end of Tabula Rasa, is customisation when we get to the new XCOM Games. To a point, it can allow you to customise/adjust a character's appearance, and even class. But the thing with 'high end' Tabula Rasa games, is it often comes at the expense of a 'main' character's importance, to the plot. With their only influence is being there for the combat or scenes. And as a generic force/soldier within that scene or event.
as much as i love some of predefined characters like aloy or arthur morgan, i will never enjoy them to quite the same extent as the characters i created myself. and as a writer i once thought that the more freedom i have the better, but actually no, having played skyrim and bg3 i felt like i had too much possibilities here and not enough points of friction between my character and the world - if i wanted to do whatever i want, i'd just write a story myself, i guess. da games, esp dao and dai really hit that sweet spot for me, between giving some ramification of who a dwarf or an elf, or a mage would be in this setting, but i can construct my own character who can disagree with the world, or try to conform to it, or benefit from it. of course it's not always ideal (like i don't like how in most dao origins we're basically locked into playing someone pretty young), but it's just constrains in time and resources, and it's the closest i have encountered so far. dav seem to go that same path with all the factions etc, and i'm glad for it. as for ai stuff, i don't think i would enjoy it, both bcos of the quality, but also for the same reason i don't roleplay with other ppl or usually play new releases - i like to know the story and the ramification of the game i'm playing, i'm too autistic to have the game suddenly change under my feet at a 5th ot 10th gameplay. i like game reacting to my decisions, but in a way i can expect and replicate when i'm replaying as the same character again.
I do enjoy your videos! I'd just like to ask whether (if you can answer) there will be tavern songs in Veilguard? I loved them in Inquisition and still get them stuck in my head today! 🙂
Baldur's Gate 3 gives you the possibility to come up with whatever story you wish for your character, and still, ironically, I much more prefer playing as a Dark Urge character. It makes for a much more compelling story while still giving me the possibility to role-play the type of character I want to be. Sometime is more compelling filling an half filled slate then a fully blank one, to choose what type of character you want to be in spite of the context around you, not according to it.
I really like the analogy of the vectors! I would take it one step forward and say that the vectors are not *orthogonal*. You can go in the direction of having a defined protagonist, but this will make it *harder* to implement player agency on the story, and viceversa.
For me, I like narrative choice RPGs with a protagonist in that middle ground that has a more defined role, such as Inquisitor or Spectre, but still allows for a range of expression within that role. I find it far more engaging to actually roleplay. Whereas a very loose character such as in BG3 or Skyrim, I feel very untethered to the narrative. And it becomes very difficult for the game itself to create emotionally engaging story content since, at any point, the player can just decide to kill their party members or become evil on a dime. With a more defined role, even wild swings from a player to the opposite end of their usual moral alignment tend to make sense within the narrative since it must fit within their defined role. I can still be a Paragon and decide that letting the Council die is the right decision. Even further defined protagonists such as Geralt in The Witcher series or V in Cyberpunk can be enjoyable. However, I do dislike the lack of freedom to truly express myself. Of course, there is that added benefit of the writers being able to create further emotionally engaging content. For me, that middle ground hits perfectly.
I wonder if the almost blank slate protagonist will be voiced in the near future thanks to AI. I'm expecting something along the lines of main story and important quests voiced by VA, unimportant side quests and rarely occurring dialogue by AI. Just recently the strike from VA's just started, and one of their main concerns is AI.
Great video, very informative! I'm firmly in the defined character camp. Me and my wife really loved DA2 despite its shortcomings precisely because we loved the story and the characters. Who cares that there is only one dungeon when the characters are so fun to talk to, haha. Gamefying AI is a very interesting topic, because right now everyone is still on a very big and very justified hate train of everything AI, so very few real attempts are being made. At the same time, minimal definition games have become harder and harder to produce over the years, so maybe in 5-10 years or so, when the technology is more mature and people are potentially more accepting, even a solo dev might pull it off, which is an interesting prospect! Will people like infinite variety of same-ish, but sort of unique story content curated by solid game systems? I'm willing to bet on yes, because a lot of live service games aren't exactly literature anyway. Will it be a gem remembered for decades to come? Not exactly, but that's not what people are looking for in their day to day entertainment anyway.
Interesting never really thought of RPG characters I play as being on a spectrum of Predefined or Blank Slate. Got me in the mood to play some old crpgs. Might play Neverwinter Nights or Baldur's Gate.
@@MarkDarrah Played Neverwinter Nights for the first time Beam Dog did a good job remastering it and porting it to PS4. The game still feels very much like a PC game of that era mostly in a good way. The controls haven't aged well. But that's mostly because I'm playing on console. I was replaying Star Wars knights of the old republic on my Xbox and the controls feel great. Did you have to change the design much between the two?
Now I am just imaging the Dragon age style mood options for Geralt. I think I would settle on Grumpy, Angsty, Apathetic, and horny. As far as interesting games where you are the character Stanley parable is almost certainly the peak of what's out at the moment. though you could quibble that its Stanley the game never acts like he is the one doing anything. Banana's and Balrogs is now a TTRPG I am very tempted to write. As far as A.I. goes I doubt I would want to seen one that can change up a game too much any time soon, but I would be very interested in one that can add a little more acknowledgment of player choice to a game with an more traditionally written story. So instead of a game halving like 3 lines of dialogue in the whole thing calling out that you are a mage and not a warrior, it can have it come up a bit more often and possibly even talk about things like what you favorite spell is, or how much of a let down it was that villain that talked a big game just got shoved in a pit in 3 seconds and died. edited after I realized I had a lot more thoughts on the video.
I vastly prefer as much of a blank slate character as is possible in the game being played. In tabletop it is implied your character fits in the world and players may need to consult with the GM prior to starting the game. In a a videogame this gets narrowed in even more because of general game constraints and this is fine. Compromise has to be made. Overall I prefer as little backstory for my own character as is possible to make the game fun. This in no way means I can't have fun with a more predetermined character.
Origins was such a great compromise ... a whole bunch of really fun character paths to play through. So awesome. Jade Empiee was a great compromise as well. There were predetermined characters, but a bunch of awesome choices.
@@MarkDarrahthanks for all of your work on many of my favorite games of all time. You have helped to provide some of the most memorable gaming experiences I have ever had. Thank you! 👍❤
I actually quite liked Mass Effect's version of Shephard. Largely blank slate but key events were defined (if given a choice), allowing for customized content within the game, whether unique spins to quests, conversations or even customized quests in general. Another example is in Dragon Age 2... or 3? where if you sided with (or against) the Werewolves in an earlier game you would get a unique spin on a particular quest. I think we might see slightly more Tabula Rasa type characters as game developers leverage Large Language Models and use Generative AI approaches (ethics aside), I don't think they would be 'perfect' Tabula Rasa's though. Obviously trade offs with speed and I still think many aspects of the character will be defined (character is a spy, or a vampire, or somehow uniquely qualified to perform the story at least)
Personally, I very much prefer the "new" D&D and DAO way of doing things. Every time I play D&D, I talk with the dungeon master and discuss the world and the possibilities for a vague idea I have for my character. And then I craft my character around the constraints of the world so that my character fits the world and has a lot of backstory-related things they can interact with during the campaign. I felt like DAO did this so well with the origin stories (which is why I've also been quite disappointed with the other DA games cause there were no playable backgrounds). I like to feel immersed and anchored in the game world when I play a roleplaying game, because otherwise if my character feels like too much of a blank slate I can't roleplay well enough. The "defined" zone also works well for me sometimes, depending on how strong the narrative of the game is. For example, Disco Elysium and Pentiment are games in which the character is predefined in many ways, while still offering you some options in how you want to portray that character. ME2 felt the best for me in terms of roleplaying out of the Mass Effect games, though I still felt it was somewhat lacking compared to things like Disco Elysium, or honestly even DA2. I couldn't really play BG3 because "tabula rasa + you have a worm in your brain" didn't really make me feel like my character was part of the world. My character could've just as well been an alien from our solar system who got to Faerun on the mindflayer ship. It's interesting to note how many people seem to enjoy the more tabula rasa side of the spectrum, however. Skyrim and BG3 have been huge hits.
16:09 i feel like you're talking about Fable 3 here, my favorite of the series. i love that you play as an entirely predefined character with a voice and personality from which we springboard into dynamic interaction.
the only problem is if you happen to be a player who does not care for popular protagonist archetypes (like relatable yet important normal basicbrobee action movie protagonist, which almost never makes sense except for Frodo and Ryder twins from MEA)
@@DirtyTimmy69 The Fable 3 protagonist is very well integrated into her world, and since she's a younger royal sibling she is also appropriately naive of the world outside castle walls. One of the problems with Shepherd in Mass Effect 1 is that as a Commander she should be much more aware of the environment and politics of the ME universe --- you'll not meet a Starfleet Commander in Star Trek who is as confoundingly ignorant as Shepherd. Usually games will start players off as an amnesiac (ME2) or foreigner because it's effective for introducing the player to the concepts of the world. i think that Mass Effect 3 is a wonderful game because it's effective both for first time players and for veterans of the series. it's pretty cool, i think, that Shepherd is as knowledgeable as she is in ME3 and we're still able to bring a narrative through her in a coherent way to new players. Witcher 3 also does this very well through Geralt, who is no dummy, and many more people played W3 than played 1 & 2 so they didn't have series knowledge to fall back on.
I always consider the character I play as my avatar in the said game universe, in part the character is me, but I must play along with whatever it is in that universe. I must consider the morality, the sentiment, and everything else in that universe which is not the same with reality. Meaning although the character is me, I can't be me as in reality but in the said universe setup. So, the game must give me understanding on how the world works and how things reflect my character. For example, my character is a magician, I must know how everything about magic and being a magician in that world, because I am not a magician and there is no magic in real life, I can't simply be myself in that world. So, when there are issues regarding magic, I must make decisions based on the lore of that world and my character bias, not my own sentiment in the real world. Things like is blood magic evil. is dark magic evil, Is all magic evil? The word is blood, dark and magic but don't have the same meaning in the real world. it sounds bad, but really? So, I must know what my character in that world would think about it, not my own. By far most games are actually using real world morality and sentiment because it is hard to completely creating new morality and sentiment in a fantasy world. So, our own bias does get into the game through our character, for me it is underwhelming. Racism is bad, magic is evil, religion is good, helping people is good...ect. Only KoTOR 2 does twisting it around a bit, and I like that. It makes me think as my character, not as myself 😁
@@MarkDarrah In Dark Souls, we are undead, everyone undead, the world is full of monsters and forgotten gods, so...how does such world function actually? The game never explains, we just wandering around killing everything, only meet a few non-hostile characters who talk to us, and we can kill them if we want to. The game is playing us, why must we act as if it is a normal world, there is no laws, no authorities, no system, no government, but we still maintain our humanity just because we are human. Despite we are all dead, we don't just kill the NPCs who talk to us because that is not what a normal human do (and we also fear that we might miss game contents of course, but still, we consider that because we are human😁)
Variety is the spice of life. I want all the games in all the styles. I want all the shades in between; a dev has to devote years of their life to a single game, but even the really long ones only take me a few months to play. But listening to this reminded me of one of the more... I'm not sure what the word is, visceral? Visceral gaming experiences I had this year, which was in FFVII: Rebirth. At one point the game forces the player, as Cloud, to attack Aerith. If you don't do anything, the game stalls. It won't progress at all. If you want the game to continue, you have to move the thumbstick and hit the attack button. It made me so mad. Cloud makes so many bad decisions and so many unforced errors and making that scene interactive forces the player to be complicit. FFVII is a pretty on-rails game, so I'm sure someone was intending to make me feel angry and defeated, and they succeeded, so all according to plan. But one risk of a defined character is that they're making choices & the player can't go along. All interesting choices risk that effect, because interesting choices are by definition divisive. But then boring choices are boring, and make for boring games.
Yes, i would be interested in a tabula rasa what's more dynamic using some kind of artificial storytelling machine --- a text based adventure could be the perfect place to go, especially if it allows for mundane lifestyle character drama as well as all the annoying bank heists and hero hijinks that D&D tends to devolve into. imagine in the game there's a computer room and you play as a defined character who is interacting with the machine storyteller through a keyboard, maybe there are colleagues there through whom a more structured narrative can be told.
What came first, the idea of us being ourselves inside a game, or playing a game so good we wish we could be in that world ? Tip: we did not know games existed before we played them. At some point, someone, somewhere created an experience that we enjoyed so much, we wish we could do more inside that world, and now we want to bastardise that work by assuming that it was US who made the game fun, we DEMAND that developers find a way to let us be ourselves inside their worlds, we forget that it was them who made us have fun, not ourselves, we had 0 creative agency in tentertaining ourselves through videogames, so no, I disagree with people that want to be themselves inside a game beyond a character creator, they're children and children don't make smart choises, they have whims.
There is a feeling about story centered games or games, where story is as much important as gameplay. That the more defined character player and the game itself get, the higher quality it should be in order to like the game. Because if I dont have freedom (or have a little), then show me what YOU (developer) can do with YOUR freedom. But then we have players that want to have a piece of themselves in a character to relate to them on one hand. And industry that wants money first and foremost, and (partly as consequence) larger playerbase. Which i think leads to why modern games (AAAAAA specifically) tend to give less choice for a player. To make it easier for them to develop. But at the same time to give players at least a bit of choice, so that players would see a piece of them in the game and more likely like the game and at the same time to have less responsibility for the character and story. And this, i think, may lead to the pint where there too many games that are not complex enough in story and\or world building, and at the same time dont give much freedom to a player, but they sell very good so industry is fine. Which is not actually bad, but concerns me in terms of creativity of the game industry. What do you think?
AAA will chase the money. Right now, a lot of that money is in live services. But I THINK that might be waning. If we go back to more but smaller games (because they are making money by selling you 2-3 games a year as opposed to getting 180$ from you for 1 game) I thin we will see story get stronger
I prefer good story telling. I feel like I have better things to do than to randomly walk around in a game universe. That's why I cannot stand open world games. Now I loved what was done in Hinterlands of Dragon Age Inquisition because there was an interesting story that could be found in various areas. But I do not feel the same when it comes to other open world games. Using AI to help with Laziness in story telling does not make me excited. I am not going to go on a rant about it...especially so near to me having to watch the Olympics where a Microsoft commercial was essentially encouraging students to have AI do their homework for them.
Definitely would not like to play a game where the content is AI generated. As far as what type of these I prefer, honestly something like ME or DA where my protagonist has some limitations placed on him work pretty well. I like how in those games, characters will react to my background choices, which is something I feel TES lacks a lot when I play an Elf in Dragon Age it feels like that matters in the context of who my character is and how that shapes his interactions in that world. When I do it on Skyrim or even previous TES games like Morrowind or Oblivion I don't feel it matters much if I play as an Elf or one of the beast races or even as a human.
I disagree that the spectrum of rpgness is linked to the spectrum of tabula rasa, or character creation freedom. Apart from borderline thought experiment, all rpg have constraints and limitations. You can't make a Dwarf from the mines of Moria in a Star Wars rpg. Your character can't be active potus Obama, or Taylor Swift. A dungeon to clear? I'll send a full battalion of marines. A place to check out? Let me make a single tweet, while asking my assistant to hire a team to fact check and collate the answers... Even if a GM would start a campaign with a wheelbarrow loaded with a complete collection of all GURPS books, or HERO books or Rolemaster books, and would tell you "make the character you want", you are still limited by what the rules can simulate, and by power level. And even if your GM let you play as Taylor Swift or Palpatine level of power, how about as jeweled-on Thanos? Or Galactus? Or the actual Catholic God? There are always constraints, always. And that's not new. Most commercial adventures (what D&D call modules) have pre-made character. A lot of us have seen at least once some friend, spouse or even another player play an existing character when the usual player has to leave for an emergency. It might have limitations, some players might not like it, but it has little to no consequences to what the game played is, to its nature. Those constraints in creation have, imo, nothing to do with the "rpgness" of a game. Now, constraints during play, especially constraints about your interpretation of your character, that's different. And videogames are inherently strongly limited there, because everything or close to it has to be coded, whereas tabletop rpg have a human GM to run the simulation in their head. And yes, when you as a developer start cutting down systems or narrative options "because it doesn't fit what the character would say/do/think", you are entering a spectrum that can change the nature of the game itself, and you are on the spectrum going from full freedom Kenshi to The Last of Us with no agency whatsoever. I remember when Mass Effect was released the first time, a lot of veterans players of crpg had issues with the dialogue wheel ("don't need to read or think about it, it's placement coded for your 'convenience' ", "no meaningful lasting consequences for choices", "lack of reactivity to systems created situation instead of fully scripted so-called narrative one") and would say it's not, or less of a crpg than say a Ultima or Fallout or a Morrowind. Not because your character creation was limited, and you had pretty strong constraints as to what Shepard did previously (notice the "did", which is very different from "thought").
Sorry, Mr. Darra, but I don't believe that a pure blank slate or completely defined main character exists, especially in video games. No matter how open your world is, you still have limitations due to mechanics or legal issues. As a mage, you can't invent a new spell, unless it has a spell constructor. As an intelligent character, you can't make some elaborate trap in something like ADOM or even Dwarf Fortress. You can only do there what is allowed by the game's mechanics. Maybe as DM in table-top, you can be more flexible and implement something that your players describe, but even in that case you will probably not allow some things (I'm sure you will know better which ones). Same with, the "defined" end of the spectrum. Even in books and movies that don't allow any interactivity whatsoever, there is often some room for interpretation of a character's actions, and different people would see different thought processes in a character's head for each decision. And in the game like BioShock Infinite or StarCraft, a player while not having choices in the dialog can make a lot of choices in the game that would define his character like, for example, a cautious type or someone who bashes through walls, or methodical, etc.
@@MarkDarrah I'm glad that you see that. It's just you didn't mention in the video and it really bothers me, when certain marketing teams claim that that player has full freedom, when in reality that's not the case. For example, when Fallout games are advertised as ones where you are free to do whatever you want in a post-apocalyptic wasteland where there is no morals of modern society, and yet, certain versions of games don't allow you to kill children or blow nukes.
Editing the last one; that boy Jeff Grubb saying yall aiming for late Oct for release if he right this roadmap need to be hitting the ground running on monday especially since yall skipping gamescom
Yes sir we will. I genuinely want yall to succeed my momma got me into this franchise n despite the frustration im getting this day one but yes we shall see @MarkDarrah
Am i weird If there is only one look for a character used in marketing of a game example Female/Male V in Cyberpunk even if the game has character creator, i can't create a character and choose to play as the one used in marketing otherwise the playtrough does not feel canon 😂
Between the point of Hawk/Geralt and a non RPG like Uncharted, and that's the classic JRPG style where the character is defined and you don't have much choice beyond mechanical customizations and side quests.
Good point
I think my favourite spot on the spectrum is 'the game defcides the character's past, but the player decides the character's present (and possibly their future)'. This means that the PC has a defined backstory and starting place within the world, but the player has a lot of latitude to decide how they will act right now.
This includes the uses of amnesia that I actually like (i.e. Planescape Torment, Disco Elysium and, from what I've heard, KotOR 1, although I admit that I've never played it). In most games with amnesia, it's used as an excuse to have the character's backstory not matter at all, which I'm not a big fan of. However, in the games I mentioned, the character's past is extremely important to the story, and amnesia instead serves as a reason why the character might act differently now than they did in the past.
That is an interesting point. You blank out the past but its still there
This was a good one. I enjoyed listening to you go over the entire spectrum.
For my personal preferences, I like games all over the spectrum. Whether or not the game is good isn’t dependent on player freedom but on how successful the game is at fulfilling its own ambitions. If it’s a walking simulator, I want to enjoy the environment I’m walking around in. If the focus is on the story, I’m fine with giving up some autonomy for a good story. Same the other way around.
Getting conflicting messages within the game bugs me. For example, in Mass Effect we are allocated certain freedoms but because someone thought Shep should be horny in MEII I’m forced to navigate flirtatious dialogue with Jacob. Flirting with everyone else is an active choice but a default setting with this one character. It’s like they’re saying “I know we gave you choices, but you’re supposed to pick this one here.”
personally I never had a hard time navigating the flirts since it was always a singular choice of the 3-6 choices. Fundementally the issue is more of clarity from the wheel that has imporved with images and a warning label that a choice would lead to a serious consquence shuch as locking in a romance
Yeah I can see that
@@ConnorLonergan Have you played Mass Effect as femme-Shep? “I’m more interested in just talking for a bit.” Ugh. I’ve successfully navigated the conversations and made Jacob my bro but the romantic tension the devs wanted us to feel is 100% unavoidable. She initiates every conversation using a flirtatious tone.
@@beccangavin Yes and as I said before to avoid the Romance route you just avoid the one option
@@ConnorLonergan The one option is saying hi. You can’t get his personal quest without doing that.
Really enjoy your videos.
Glad to hear it!
Thank you so much for the video. It's great to see the insight from a developer who worked on these types of games.
I would argue that Bioware games have always been better when they defined the protagonist a bit more. As you said, it give the developers more opportunities to use the characters in the storytelling. Which Bioware is really good an known for.
I think if every Bioware protagonist was voiced not much would change. As they are already pretty defined. I don't think DAO would change a lot if the Warden was voiced.
There is some implied tone in DAO that might be an issue
@@MarkDarrah I do think though it wouldn't be that much of a issue.
@@MarkDarrahalso I just want to sat that I completely agree with the last segment. What is the best type of character is what the developer is trying to do. I feel like people don't understand that which character type is better is what the game is trying to do, and not that one is better than the other.
To extend on that i would reframe the problem a bit: players, in interactive story telling and writing, have an issue of exposition. Character need an introduction to function in a narrative, which slot them in narrative role within the ongoing arcs of the story. The spectrum of tabula rasa to defined, is one way to adress that.
Tabula rasa are difficult because there need mechanics to introduce the player, as a character into the story world, to the narrative. Stat sheet, moral choices, factions, affinities, flags, are way to handle exposing a blank state character to the narrative, like we have need to expose the world and character to the player.
But **typically** these mechanics are seen from a simulationist perspective, ie branching consequences to actions, which frustrate a lot the narrative, since the branching factor dilutes the intentionality.
This lead to bad narrative pattern like on the spot dilemma, which stop all progression until the player make a choice about a problem he just encountered. Mass effect soften this considerably, by having the dilemma asked at the beginning of a quest, that walkthrough the pro and cons of the **subjects**, and let the player answer at the end, once he got all of the exposition.
Reframing this problem as exposition allows to bridge the gap between narrative and simulation, as it imply the aesthetics of exposing the player to the world is **the quizz** ie that each narrative situation isn't just branching, it's directly questioning the player who he is through metaphorical subjects and topics, then we regularly tally the response to give back the world answers back to the player. Ie it becomes player *character* driven.
But that's not enough, we need to unify plot and character to control the branching factor. Character and plot driven narrative has been an old debates, but I posit that stakes is the true foundation, stakes define what actions and plot is relevant, and it pressure character to take action. When the character is undefined or random, stakes still keep the arc compelling by keeping meaning of story coherent.
What is stakes mechanically? Well it's simply progression toward failure and success. If you are poisoned, you need to seek for the cure or die, how you or character handle this situation is meaningful.
And since it's a progression, we can tie events to the state of progress, to make the world react to your actions. Even uf you fool around, character might become increasingly concern, disillusioned or wax poetic about existence, because the current stakes define the narrative context.
Stakes as mechanic allow to better structure both tabula rasa and defined character in interactive narrative, by allowing to create plot point that are quizz tracking each characters in context were **any** action is given meaning by the subject of the current context. I have a bigger graph breakdown that deconstruct this. That's just an explanation of some of it's part lol😅
You can tell I'm unemployed by the time spent in that comment 😂
Stakes are absolutely critical. And stakes with a Tabula Rasa can be harder.
@@MarkDarrah only if the world doesn't push back. Think about it, a pure tabula rasa would have no connection, and thus cannot leverage the one necessary for subsistance, which is a default external stake for these characters, they would need to start entangling with the world to keep existing, just like being unemployed push me to find a job. The world should provide push and pull such that danger and opportunity funnel any character toward a defined story.
Great video! I can enjoy all types or protagonists, but I find that (with exceptions ofc) games that are more on the blank slate side have a tendency to disappoint me a little since I build up a character in my head only to then realise that the dialog options don't actually offer what I imagined my character to be
I think that's me too. They give you space but they can't really fill it with you
and some dialogue just doesn't work as well unvoiced, like humorous dialogue or aggressive/assertive dialogue, imo
I didn't understand the connection between dialog quantity and play style until this.
I hope current and future developers find this series of vids. It's a college course on management in general and game development on a micro level. Thanks Mark.
Thank you for watching
Incredibly interesting to see the thought process on approaching such a decision. But, to be really honest, you had me at "tabula rasa." Latin rocks. :-) Quick edit to add: I much prefer less reactivity with better story telling vs more reactivity and sub-par AI storytelling.
My worry with AI isn't A+ quality.
Its C- quality at massive cheap volumes
cool video! I'd actually been thinking about this a lot lately as I'm curious how far into a game you could push set characterization. like at the beginning you choose a simple blurb backstory then get to retroactively fill it out more through tracked dialogue options that have consequences as the game progresses. that'd require a ton of extra writing tho and there's always a chance that more rp focused players would have initially thought up a character that your system doesn't allow for anyway.
be that as it may, i have no interest in any story that's written or expanded through machine generated content. even putting the ethics aside, id much rather have a more limited but meaningful expression of who i imagine my character to be than to infinitely generate particulars that will never mean anything.
At least for now, AI story telling will AT BEST produce oatmeal. Stolen oatmeal
I couldn’t agree more with your final thoughts. When I play Skyrim, I’m invested in the world, because it’s essentially just me in it even though I’m not a Dragonborn or anything. When I play Mass Effect, I’m invested in Commander Shepard. It’s super important to make the frameworks you offer the player (like in most BW games) easily relatable and relevant to the character. When I pick the War Hero background, that’s seeded into how Shepard should make choices and behave. They’re still my choices, but I’m having to “immersion-check” them against what’s believable for the character.
Well said
I'd highlight a few examples of Tabula Rasa on an extreme end. And that's the likes of XCOM and Wizardry.
On an "old school" end, is the Wizardry scale of character creation. And that's a mix of "make a party of characters" (or names) to send an army or party with. But with not much detail to impart/remember, which leads to more immersion to a 'Tabula Rasa' scale.
On the other end of Tabula Rasa, is customisation when we get to the new XCOM Games. To a point, it can allow you to customise/adjust a character's appearance, and even class. But the thing with 'high end' Tabula Rasa games, is it often comes at the expense of a 'main' character's importance, to the plot. With their only influence is being there for the combat or scenes. And as a generic force/soldier within that scene or event.
That's right, if you let me specify everything, then the way the game often handles it is by making not that relevant
As someone moving from DMing into game design, this video is invaluable.
Glad to hear it!
Can confirm, we can see the audio-video desync ;)
I hope that new captures won't have this issue...
as much as i love some of predefined characters like aloy or arthur morgan, i will never enjoy them to quite the same extent as the characters i created myself. and as a writer i once thought that the more freedom i have the better, but actually no, having played skyrim and bg3 i felt like i had too much possibilities here and not enough points of friction between my character and the world - if i wanted to do whatever i want, i'd just write a story myself, i guess. da games, esp dao and dai really hit that sweet spot for me, between giving some ramification of who a dwarf or an elf, or a mage would be in this setting, but i can construct my own character who can disagree with the world, or try to conform to it, or benefit from it. of course it's not always ideal (like i don't like how in most dao origins we're basically locked into playing someone pretty young), but it's just constrains in time and resources, and it's the closest i have encountered so far. dav seem to go that same path with all the factions etc, and i'm glad for it.
as for ai stuff, i don't think i would enjoy it, both bcos of the quality, but also for the same reason i don't roleplay with other ppl or usually play new releases - i like to know the story and the ramification of the game i'm playing, i'm too autistic to have the game suddenly change under my feet at a 5th ot 10th gameplay. i like game reacting to my decisions, but in a way i can expect and replicate when i'm replaying as the same character again.
Yeah AI stories could get weird, fast. In addition to being of questionable quality / morality
What do you mean you aren't wearing that hat.
Lol
I do enjoy your videos! I'd just like to ask whether (if you can answer) there will be tavern songs in Veilguard? I loved them in Inquisition and still get them stuck in my head today! 🙂
Not a question I can answer.
@@MarkDarrah Fair enough, thank you anyway ^_^
Baldur's Gate 3 gives you the possibility to come up with whatever story you wish for your character, and still, ironically, I much more prefer playing as a Dark Urge character. It makes for a much more compelling story while still giving me the possibility to role-play the type of character I want to be. Sometime is more compelling filling an half filled slate then a fully blank one, to choose what type of character you want to be in spite of the context around you, not according to it.
That’s it. A bit more definition gives more scaffolding to hang the story from
I really like the analogy of the vectors! I would take it one step forward and say that the vectors are not *orthogonal*. You can go in the direction of having a defined protagonist, but this will make it *harder* to implement player agency on the story, and viceversa.
You are right. I don't think they are orthogonal or parallel.
For me, I like narrative choice RPGs with a protagonist in that middle ground that has a more defined role, such as Inquisitor or Spectre, but still allows for a range of expression within that role. I find it far more engaging to actually roleplay. Whereas a very loose character such as in BG3 or Skyrim, I feel very untethered to the narrative. And it becomes very difficult for the game itself to create emotionally engaging story content since, at any point, the player can just decide to kill their party members or become evil on a dime. With a more defined role, even wild swings from a player to the opposite end of their usual moral alignment tend to make sense within the narrative since it must fit within their defined role. I can still be a Paragon and decide that letting the Council die is the right decision.
Even further defined protagonists such as Geralt in The Witcher series or V in Cyberpunk can be enjoyable. However, I do dislike the lack of freedom to truly express myself. Of course, there is that added benefit of the writers being able to create further emotionally engaging content. For me, that middle ground hits perfectly.
I'm pretty close to the same place these days
I wonder if the almost blank slate protagonist will be voiced in the near future thanks to AI. I'm expecting something along the lines of main story and important quests voiced by VA, unimportant side quests and rarely occurring dialogue by AI.
Just recently the strike from VA's just started, and one of their main concerns is AI.
I think they are right to expect the dev houses WANT this.
Great video, very informative! I'm firmly in the defined character camp. Me and my wife really loved DA2 despite its shortcomings precisely because we loved the story and the characters. Who cares that there is only one dungeon when the characters are so fun to talk to, haha.
Gamefying AI is a very interesting topic, because right now everyone is still on a very big and very justified hate train of everything AI, so very few real attempts are being made. At the same time, minimal definition games have become harder and harder to produce over the years, so maybe in 5-10 years or so, when the technology is more mature and people are potentially more accepting, even a solo dev might pull it off, which is an interesting prospect! Will people like infinite variety of same-ish, but sort of unique story content curated by solid game systems? I'm willing to bet on yes, because a lot of live service games aren't exactly literature anyway. Will it be a gem remembered for decades to come? Not exactly, but that's not what people are looking for in their day to day entertainment anyway.
I think AI will get to "A ton of C or B- quality" pretty soon. Does anyone WANT that? I don't know
Interesting never really thought of RPG characters I play as being on a spectrum of Predefined or Blank Slate. Got me in the mood to play some old crpgs. Might play Neverwinter Nights or Baldur's Gate.
good luck!
@@MarkDarrah Played Neverwinter Nights for the first time Beam Dog did a good job remastering it and porting it to PS4. The game still feels very much like a PC game of that era mostly in a good way. The controls haven't aged well. But that's mostly because I'm playing on console. I was replaying Star Wars knights of the old republic on my Xbox and the controls feel great. Did you have to change the design much between the two?
Now I am just imaging the Dragon age style mood options for Geralt. I think I would settle on Grumpy, Angsty, Apathetic, and horny.
As far as interesting games where you are the character Stanley parable is almost certainly the peak of what's out at the moment. though you could quibble that its Stanley the game never acts like he is the one doing anything.
Banana's and Balrogs is now a TTRPG I am very tempted to write.
As far as A.I. goes I doubt I would want to seen one that can change up a game too much any time soon, but I would be very interested in one that can add a little more acknowledgment of player choice to a game with an more traditionally written story. So instead of a game halving like 3 lines of dialogue in the whole thing calling out that you are a mage and not a warrior, it can have it come up a bit more often and possibly even talk about things like what you favorite spell is, or how much of a let down it was that villain that talked a big game just got shoved in a pit in 3 seconds and died.
edited after I realized I had a lot more thoughts on the video.
I suspect we will see AI dialog of some sort very soon.
For good or ill
I vastly prefer as much of a blank slate character as is possible in the game being played. In tabletop it is implied your character fits in the world and players may need to consult with the GM prior to starting the game.
In a a videogame this gets narrowed in even more because of general game constraints and this is fine. Compromise has to be made.
Overall I prefer as little backstory for my own character as is possible to make the game fun.
This in no way means I can't have fun with a more predetermined character.
Fair enough
Origins was such a great compromise ... a whole bunch of really fun character paths to play through. So awesome. Jade Empiee was a great compromise as well. There were predetermined characters, but a bunch of awesome choices.
@@MarkDarrahthanks for all of your work on many of my favorite games of all time. You have helped to provide some of the most memorable gaming experiences I have ever had. Thank you! 👍❤
I actually quite liked Mass Effect's version of Shephard. Largely blank slate but key events were defined (if given a choice), allowing for customized content within the game, whether unique spins to quests, conversations or even customized quests in general. Another example is in Dragon Age 2... or 3? where if you sided with (or against) the Werewolves in an earlier game you would get a unique spin on a particular quest.
I think we might see slightly more Tabula Rasa type characters as game developers leverage Large Language Models and use Generative AI approaches (ethics aside), I don't think they would be 'perfect' Tabula Rasa's though. Obviously trade offs with speed and I still think many aspects of the character will be defined (character is a spy, or a vampire, or somehow uniquely qualified to perform the story at least)
Yeah I think you need a bit of definition as foundation for interesting stories
Its the difference between Gordon Freeman and..Mario
Mario is… tightly but shallowly defined I think
Personally, I very much prefer the "new" D&D and DAO way of doing things. Every time I play D&D, I talk with the dungeon master and discuss the world and the possibilities for a vague idea I have for my character. And then I craft my character around the constraints of the world so that my character fits the world and has a lot of backstory-related things they can interact with during the campaign. I felt like DAO did this so well with the origin stories (which is why I've also been quite disappointed with the other DA games cause there were no playable backgrounds). I like to feel immersed and anchored in the game world when I play a roleplaying game, because otherwise if my character feels like too much of a blank slate I can't roleplay well enough. The "defined" zone also works well for me sometimes, depending on how strong the narrative of the game is. For example, Disco Elysium and Pentiment are games in which the character is predefined in many ways, while still offering you some options in how you want to portray that character. ME2 felt the best for me in terms of roleplaying out of the Mass Effect games, though I still felt it was somewhat lacking compared to things like Disco Elysium, or honestly even DA2.
I couldn't really play BG3 because "tabula rasa + you have a worm in your brain" didn't really make me feel like my character was part of the world. My character could've just as well been an alien from our solar system who got to Faerun on the mindflayer ship. It's interesting to note how many people seem to enjoy the more tabula rasa side of the spectrum, however. Skyrim and BG3 have been huge hits.
For some, Skyrim is about defining your character by the plots you do
A very interessting theme. This show a bit the decition dev. have to make.
Thanks for watching
16:09
i feel like you're talking about Fable 3 here, my favorite of the series.
i love that you play as an entirely predefined character with a voice and personality from which we springboard into dynamic interaction.
Oh that's interesting yes
the only problem is if you happen to be a player who does not care for popular protagonist archetypes (like relatable yet important normal basicbrobee action movie protagonist, which almost never makes sense except for Frodo and Ryder twins from MEA)
@@DirtyTimmy69
The Fable 3 protagonist is very well integrated into her world, and since she's a younger royal sibling she is also appropriately naive of the world outside castle walls.
One of the problems with Shepherd in Mass Effect 1 is that as a Commander she should be much more aware of the environment and politics of the ME universe --- you'll not meet a Starfleet Commander in Star Trek who is as confoundingly ignorant as Shepherd.
Usually games will start players off as an amnesiac (ME2) or foreigner because it's effective for introducing the player to the concepts of the world.
i think that Mass Effect 3 is a wonderful game because it's effective both for first time players and for veterans of the series.
it's pretty cool, i think, that Shepherd is as knowledgeable as she is in ME3 and we're still able to bring a narrative through her in a coherent way to new players.
Witcher 3 also does this very well through Geralt, who is no dummy, and many more people played W3 than played 1 & 2 so they didn't have series knowledge to fall back on.
I always consider the character I play as my avatar in the said game universe, in part the character is me, but I must play along with whatever it is in that universe. I must consider the morality, the sentiment, and everything else in that universe which is not the same with reality. Meaning although the character is me, I can't be me as in reality but in the said universe setup. So, the game must give me understanding on how the world works and how things reflect my character.
For example, my character is a magician, I must know how everything about magic and being a magician in that world, because I am not a magician and there is no magic in real life, I can't simply be myself in that world. So, when there are issues regarding magic, I must make decisions based on the lore of that world and my character bias, not my own sentiment in the real world. Things like is blood magic evil. is dark magic evil, Is all magic evil? The word is blood, dark and magic but don't have the same meaning in the real world. it sounds bad, but really? So, I must know what my character in that world would think about it, not my own.
By far most games are actually using real world morality and sentiment because it is hard to completely creating new morality and sentiment in a fantasy world. So, our own bias does get into the game through our character, for me it is underwhelming. Racism is bad, magic is evil, religion is good, helping people is good...ect. Only KoTOR 2 does twisting it around a bit, and I like that. It makes me think as my character, not as myself 😁
Wow this is a very nuanced approach
@@MarkDarrah In Dark Souls, we are undead, everyone undead, the world is full of monsters and forgotten gods, so...how does such world function actually? The game never explains, we just wandering around killing everything, only meet a few non-hostile characters who talk to us, and we can kill them if we want to. The game is playing us, why must we act as if it is a normal world, there is no laws, no authorities, no system, no government, but we still maintain our humanity just because we are human. Despite we are all dead, we don't just kill the NPCs who talk to us because that is not what a normal human do (and we also fear that we might miss game contents of course, but still, we consider that because we are human😁)
Variety is the spice of life. I want all the games in all the styles. I want all the shades in between; a dev has to devote years of their life to a single game, but even the really long ones only take me a few months to play.
But listening to this reminded me of one of the more... I'm not sure what the word is, visceral? Visceral gaming experiences I had this year, which was in FFVII: Rebirth. At one point the game forces the player, as Cloud, to attack Aerith. If you don't do anything, the game stalls. It won't progress at all. If you want the game to continue, you have to move the thumbstick and hit the attack button. It made me so mad. Cloud makes so many bad decisions and so many unforced errors and making that scene interactive forces the player to be complicit.
FFVII is a pretty on-rails game, so I'm sure someone was intending to make me feel angry and defeated, and they succeeded, so all according to plan. But one risk of a defined character is that they're making choices & the player can't go along. All interesting choices risk that effect, because interesting choices are by definition divisive. But then boring choices are boring, and make for boring games.
I do like when devs explore this space. I don’t enjoy it HAPPENING to me but I like the exploration
Yes, i would be interested in a tabula rasa what's more dynamic using some kind of artificial storytelling machine --- a text based adventure could be the perfect place to go, especially if it allows for mundane lifestyle character drama as well as all the annoying bank heists and hero hijinks that D&D tends to devolve into.
imagine in the game there's a computer room and you play as a defined character who is interacting with the machine storyteller through a keyboard, maybe there are colleagues there through whom a more structured narrative can be told.
I suspect we will see attempts VERY soon
could you make a video about quest design and narrative documentation in rpgs?
... I can try to put something together
*Imagines playing Neverwinter Nights 1 trilogy as a banana* Nope, can't do it :D. I like Mass Effect best if I had to pick.
good choice
What came first, the idea of us being ourselves inside a game, or playing a game so good we wish we could be in that world ?
Tip: we did not know games existed before we played them.
At some point, someone, somewhere created an experience that we enjoyed so much, we wish we could do more inside that world, and now we want to bastardise that work by assuming that it was US who made the game fun, we DEMAND that developers find a way to let us be ourselves inside their worlds, we forget that it was them who made us have fun, not ourselves, we had 0 creative agency in tentertaining ourselves through videogames, so no, I disagree with people that want to be themselves inside a game beyond a character creator, they're children and children don't make smart choises, they have whims.
I'm not saying they want to be them selves necessarily. Only that there may be interesting story telling ground to explore there...
There is a feeling about story centered games or games, where story is as much important as gameplay. That the more defined character player and the game itself get, the higher quality it should be in order to like the game. Because if I dont have freedom (or have a little), then show me what YOU (developer) can do with YOUR freedom.
But then we have players that want to have a piece of themselves in a character to relate to them on one hand. And industry that wants money first and foremost, and (partly as consequence) larger playerbase.
Which i think leads to why modern games (AAAAAA specifically) tend to give less choice for a player. To make it easier for them to develop. But at the same time to give players at least a bit of choice, so that players would see a piece of them in the game and more likely like the game and at the same time to have less responsibility for the character and story.
And this, i think, may lead to the pint where there too many games that are not complex enough in story and\or world building, and at the same time dont give much freedom to a player, but they sell very good so industry is fine. Which is not actually bad, but concerns me in terms of creativity of the game industry.
What do you think?
AAA will chase the money.
Right now, a lot of that money is in live services.
But I THINK that might be waning.
If we go back to more but smaller games (because they are making money by selling you 2-3 games a year as opposed to getting 180$ from you for 1 game) I thin we will see story get stronger
I prefer good story telling. I feel like I have better things to do than to randomly walk around in a game universe. That's why I cannot stand open world games. Now I loved what was done in Hinterlands of Dragon Age Inquisition because there was an interesting story that could be found in various areas. But I do not feel the same when it comes to other open world games. Using AI to help with Laziness in story telling does not make me excited. I am not going to go on a rant about it...especially so near to me having to watch the Olympics where a Microsoft commercial was essentially encouraging students to have AI do their homework for them.
AI is gonna start dumping massive amounts of mediocre stuff into a lot of genres soon I expect
Definitely would not like to play a game where the content is AI generated. As far as what type of these I prefer, honestly something like ME or DA where my protagonist has some limitations placed on him work pretty well. I like how in those games, characters will react to my background choices, which is something I feel TES lacks a lot when I play an Elf in Dragon Age it feels like that matters in the context of who my character is and how that shapes his interactions in that world. When I do it on Skyrim or even previous TES games like Morrowind or Oblivion I don't feel it matters much if I play as an Elf or one of the beast races or even as a human.
Skyrim can't really care about what you are outside of the specific quests where (for example) you BECOME archmage
The sync seems slightly better, but I might be mistaken. Still out of whack, though, ever so slightly. :(
It may be in the original footage… I can’t tell anymore
I disagree that the spectrum of rpgness is linked to the spectrum of tabula rasa, or character creation freedom.
Apart from borderline thought experiment, all rpg have constraints and limitations. You can't make a Dwarf from the mines of Moria in a Star Wars rpg. Your character can't be active potus Obama, or Taylor Swift. A dungeon to clear? I'll send a full battalion of marines. A place to check out? Let me make a single tweet, while asking my assistant to hire a team to fact check and collate the answers...
Even if a GM would start a campaign with a wheelbarrow loaded with a complete collection of all GURPS books, or HERO books or Rolemaster books, and would tell you "make the character you want", you are still limited by what the rules can simulate, and by power level. And even if your GM let you play as Taylor Swift or Palpatine level of power, how about as jeweled-on Thanos? Or Galactus? Or the actual Catholic God? There are always constraints, always.
And that's not new. Most commercial adventures (what D&D call modules) have pre-made character. A lot of us have seen at least once some friend, spouse or even another player play an existing character when the usual player has to leave for an emergency. It might have limitations, some players might not like it, but it has little to no consequences to what the game played is, to its nature.
Those constraints in creation have, imo, nothing to do with the "rpgness" of a game.
Now, constraints during play, especially constraints about your interpretation of your character, that's different. And videogames are inherently strongly limited there, because everything or close to it has to be coded, whereas tabletop rpg have a human GM to run the simulation in their head. And yes, when you as a developer start cutting down systems or narrative options "because it doesn't fit what the character would say/do/think", you are entering a spectrum that can change the nature of the game itself, and you are on the spectrum going from full freedom Kenshi to The Last of Us with no agency whatsoever.
I remember when Mass Effect was released the first time, a lot of veterans players of crpg had issues with the dialogue wheel ("don't need to read or think about it, it's placement coded for your 'convenience' ", "no meaningful lasting consequences for choices", "lack of reactivity to systems created situation instead of fully scripted so-called narrative one") and would say it's not, or less of a crpg than say a Ultima or Fallout or a Morrowind. Not because your character creation was limited, and you had pretty strong constraints as to what Shepard did previously (notice the "did", which is very different from "thought").
Its not just character creation freedom, its also linked to character expression freedom. These 2 things aren't the same, but they are related
Sorry, Mr. Darra, but I don't believe that a pure blank slate or completely defined main character exists, especially in video games. No matter how open your world is, you still have limitations due to mechanics or legal issues. As a mage, you can't invent a new spell, unless it has a spell constructor. As an intelligent character, you can't make some elaborate trap in something like ADOM or even Dwarf Fortress. You can only do there what is allowed by the game's mechanics. Maybe as DM in table-top, you can be more flexible and implement something that your players describe, but even in that case you will probably not allow some things (I'm sure you will know better which ones).
Same with, the "defined" end of the spectrum. Even in books and movies that don't allow any interactivity whatsoever, there is often some room for interpretation of a character's actions, and different people would see different thought processes in a character's head for each decision. And in the game like BioShock Infinite or StarCraft, a player while not having choices in the dialog can make a lot of choices in the game that would define his character like, for example, a cautious type or someone who bashes through walls, or methodical, etc.
Sure, there are unreachable extremes.
@@MarkDarrah I'm glad that you see that. It's just you didn't mention in the video and it really bothers me, when certain marketing teams claim that that player has full freedom, when in reality that's not the case. For example, when Fallout games are advertised as ones where you are free to do whatever you want in a post-apocalyptic wasteland where there is no morals of modern society, and yet, certain versions of games don't allow you to kill children or blow nukes.
Editing the last one; that boy Jeff Grubb saying yall aiming for late Oct for release if he right this roadmap need to be hitting the ground running on monday especially since yall skipping gamescom
I guess we’ll see
Yes sir we will. I genuinely want yall to succeed my momma got me into this franchise n despite the frustration im getting this day one but yes we shall see @MarkDarrah
Am i weird If there is only one look for a character used in marketing of a game example Female/Male V in Cyberpunk even if the game has character creator, i can't create a character and choose to play as the one used in marketing otherwise the playtrough does not feel canon 😂
I suspect this is fairly common TBH