Character-less PCs

Brother None said:
the author takes issue with the lack of personality of the PC in Fallout 3
Click to expand...

He's playing the wrong game...

images

for him :ugly:
 
Alphadrop said:
Sounds like he's too used to jrpgs and adventure games where your hero has a preset personality.
Click to expand...
Sounds like he's an idiot who doesn't know how to create fast characters that shoot slimy bastards before they even unholster their weapons...
 
Ranne said:
Ok, let's put it this way: you call it emotional cues, I call it realistic character behavior. First-person view may be a whole different kind of thing, but when you can always observe your character from a third-person perspective, the emotional state of this avatar becomes as much of an immersive factor as anything else around him/her, perhaps even more so.

When a character you play moves, talks and acts like a goddamn wooden marionette, what possible level of involvement are we talking about? In my view, it's downright immersion breaking. If your character is supposed to be a human being, some human emotions and reactions are not only appropriate but rather expected, wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...

Well, I wouldn't want the game to do it automatically for me, however. What if I didn't care that the boy was on his own... what If I want my character to cackle maniacally when I pass by his house? Don't force, if it is gonna be in there, make it some optional keystroke or console command or something... however, a command to weep or laugh crazily (or any other emotion) seems a bit nuts to me... either way, forcing a singular in-game emotional response that I don't want when "roleplaying" is just retarded x 100.
 
So, controlling a (predefined) lifeless character who has less than a handful of (predefined) possible solutions for every single (predefined) problem he may encounter is called role-playing, but controlling a responsive and reactive character who shows an occasional sign of emotion in his replies (say, an ambiguous smirk after saying or hearing a joke) is limiting and detrimental to role-play?

As for your supposed desire to laugh at the child you just inadvertently orphaned, let's take a look at what exactly happened in the given scenario:

You make a choice between what is "good" (dismantling the bomb for the township's sake) and what is "evil" (detonating the bomb for personal gain). Then you remove any possible ambiguity from your actions by informing the sheriff about the mentioned conspiracy. Consequently, the good sheriff gets shot by the bad guys and you make yet another conscious decision to express your condolences to his grieving son.

So, in light of your personal actions and choices, how exactly would it be wrong for your character to occasionally "stop outside that boy's empty house, and weep a little, even utter a few profanities in shock of what's taken place"? Not only that, but how exactly does "cackling maniacally" fit into all this? Talk about unrealistic expectations...
 
How is it right? I would ask that also.


This is the ultimate problem with CRPGs:

1) force a response on the character - regardless on how "right" or correct it may seem, maybe I don;t want to weep, maybe I'm a stoic character who is hard as nails... maybe I am emotionless

2) allow some UI for creating player-driven responses. this seems superfluous and would be ignored by many players or abused for youtube goodness

3) do nothing - unrealistic, but video games aren't realistic are they


I don't like any of the options really.



Maybe I don't want to give that kid my condolences, maybe I just want to say "too bad you're dad... time grow up now and be a fucking man! welcome to the wasteland" - not evil, but heartless, nonetheless.



Talk about unrealistic expectations...
Click to expand...
indeed
 
Perhaps the issue is that some people think that with the graphical presentation of games like Fallout 3, anything that isn't explicitly shown or spoken hasn't happened at all and has in fact been shown not to happen. Nothing can be open or implicit. In Wasteland you lob a couple of mortar shells at random and then you find out this did some damage because when your green squad icon moves over some white rubble icon you get the message, "You can't buy hot dogs here anymore since some nameless scum blew up the building." Maybe you go "oops" or chuckle or wonder about the world for a bit. What the place looks like, what your characters say and do, it's not shown, but it takes shape anyway; you can't stop it from taking shape. It's complete and perfect. With first-person 3D graphics you can't not show the rubble any more. And then you opt to eschew the text message, because hey, show, don't tell and that stuff. You are actually there (let's not stop there - let's claim you're "literally" actually there!), you're not just seeing it on your monitor any more like in the games of old. And suddenly you're left with a surprisingly lifeless tableau and people cry for at least the main character to sob and recite a sad poem or something, to cover up all the lifelessness that came with the new point of view and immersion. Let's patch and spackle. You can't play decent RPGs here anymore since some nameless scum advanced the technology.
 
My main problem isn't the lack of emotion on the part of the main character that is described here. As others have pointed out, the player is supposed to decide the main character's emotion in a role playing game.

No, no. My main problem here is the fact that it's impossible to intervene and save the Sheriff’s life when he's trying to apprehend the bad guy.

I suppose there were one or two events in the original Fallout games that had pre-determined outcomes (that family that gets killed in the wasteland in F2, for example) but it doesn't seem like there were many of them. The fact that you automatically get railroaded into a situation where the Sheriff has to be killed - and his son orphaned - when you report Burke just seems wrong to me. At least in F1 when Killian was attacked, you had the choice of intervening to save him, or just standing there like a slack jawed yokel and letting things play out.

I still haven’t purchased or played F3. What, exactly, is the justification for not allowing the player the option of saving the Sheriff?

Of course, this complaint is the complaint I have once I move beyond the sheer implausibility that a (supposedly experienced?) Sheriff who’s about to apprehend a man he realizes is so damn dangerous that he just tried to nuke an entire town, would somehow A) try to apprehend the guy himself, without asking for the help of deputies/trusted friends/ or even, I don’t know… the player, and B) be enough of a putz to allow someone he knows is so dangerous to get the drop on him.

I guess post-nuclear America lost all law enforcement officials with basic common sense when Killian Darkwater passed. At least he realized the wisdom of getting together an entire party to round up Gizmo, even though Gizmo never did anything remotely as dangerous as try to set off a nuclear warhead.
 
No, no. My main problem here is the fact that it's impossible to intervene and save the Sheriff’s life when he's trying to apprehend the bad guy.
Click to expand...

not true, first time I played, I saw Burke pull his pistol out, I immediately went into VATS and killed him before he could get a shot off at Simms, afterwards Simms appreciated I saved his life and also admitted he was getting a little slow in his old age.

[Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 12:37 Post subject:
My main problem isn't the lack of emotion on the part of the main character that is described here. As others have pointed out, the player is supposed to decide the main character's emotion in a role playing game.

No, no. My main problem here is the fact that it's impossible to intervene and save the Sheriff’s life when he's trying to apprehend the bad guy.

I suppose there were one or two events in the original Fallout games that had pre-determined outcomes (that family that gets killed in the wasteland in F2, for example) but it doesn't seem like there were many of them. The fact that you automatically get railroaded into a situation where the Sheriff has to be killed - and his son orphaned - when you report Burke just seems wrong to me. At least in F1 when Killian was attacked, you had the choice of intervening to save him, or just standing there like a slack jawed yokel and letting things play out.


edit:
I still haven’t purchased or played F3.
Click to expand...
ok... this explains your first comment i quoted.
 
not true, first time I played, I saw Burke pull his pistol out, I immediately went into VATS and killed him before he could get a shot off at Simms, afterwards Simms appreciated I saved his life and also admitted he was getting a little slow in his old age.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this is something that depends on the reflexes of the player, not the character.
 
Rev. Layle said:
No, no. My main problem here is the fact that it's impossible to intervene and save the Sheriff’s life when he's trying to apprehend the bad guy.
Click to expand...

not true, first time I played, I saw Burke pull his pistol out, I immediately went into VATS and killed him before he could get a shot off at Simms, afterwards Simms appreciated I saved his life and also admitted he was getting a little slow in his old age.

[Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 12:37 Post subject:
My main problem isn't the lack of emotion on the part of the main character that is described here. As others have pointed out, the player is supposed to decide the main character's emotion in a role playing game.

No, no. My main problem here is the fact that it's impossible to intervene and save the Sheriff’s life when he's trying to apprehend the bad guy.

I suppose there were one or two events in the original Fallout games that had pre-determined outcomes (that family that gets killed in the wasteland in F2, for example) but it doesn't seem like there were many of them. The fact that you automatically get railroaded into a situation where the Sheriff has to be killed - and his son orphaned - when you report Burke just seems wrong to me. At least in F1 when Killian was attacked, you had the choice of intervening to save him, or just standing there like a slack jawed yokel and letting things play out.


edit:
I still haven’t purchased or played F3.
Click to expand...
ok... this explains your first comment i quoted.
Click to expand...

My apologies, then. I thought (from what I read here and elsewhere) that Simms dies if you report Burke, and you can't do anything about it.

Indeed, it seems like every place I read about this particular choice, it's always reported that Simms dies. Although I admit I've hardly read everything on F3...
 
Indeed, it seems like every place I read about this particular choice, it's always reported that Simms dies. Although I admit I've hardly read everything on F3...
Click to expand...

As I said, it depends on your (the player's reflexes) too much, and if you're not quick enough, Simm will die (regardless of your character's Agility or Perception).
 
Again, GTA4 makes a great example of a game done right. It only shows you parts of the picture, but it does it in such a convincing manner that your mind gets fooled into accepting the reality of the shown world. Fallout 3 does the opposite. You can follow any random NPC to his destination, only to see them stand there like a lifeless dummy. You can close in and speak to anyone, only to realize how extremely limited their conversation tree is. You can visit or break into every single house in the city, only to see that all ten of them look uninhabited and generic. You can accompany your sexual partner to the bedroom, only to see them lie on the bed and stay entirely motionless for eight hours.

Regardless of whether you like it or not, it's a visual environment. If you want to imply something, try to limit the character's access to the implied element and concentrate on making the visible parts as realistic and convincing as possible. Otherwise, it will only look ridiculous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?Vu_0cy4gUz0
If that's how "real" role-playing should look like, I think I'd rather stay with Mass Effect or play a "predefined" JRPG, thank you.
 
Ranne said:
Again, GTA4 makes a great example of a game done right. It only shows you parts of the picture, but it does it in such a convincing manner that your mind gets fooled into accepting the reality of the shown world. Fallout 3 does the opposite. You can follow any random NPC to his destination, only to see them stand there like a lifeless dummy. You can close in and speak to anyone, only to realize how extremely limited their conversation tree is. You can visit or break into every single house in the city, only to see that all ten of them look uninhabited and generic. You can accompany your sexual partner to the bedroom, only to see them lie on the bed and stay entirely motionless for eight hours.

Regardless of whether you like it or not, it's a visual environment. If you want to imply something, try to limit the character's access to the implied element and concentrate on making the visible parts as realistic and convincing as possible. Otherwise, it will only look ridiculous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?Vu_0cy4gUz0
If that's how "real" role-playing should look like, I think I'd rather stay with Mass Effect or play a "predefined" JRPG, thank you.
Click to expand...
That's one of my primary aspects about F3 which I cannot stand. I will freely admit I am NOT well versed in RPG games. Most games I have are either FPP shooters of various types or horror adventure types (Silent Hill, Nocturne etc). My experience with RPGs mainly comes from FF7 (I know not the hardest core) and FF tactics (LOVED that game). What is positively hilarious is that I cared FAR more about characters in FF tactics and was interested in them FAR more than in F3! HAHAHA! A RPG in which "tactics" is the primary focus and the NPCs still have more draw than F3. Bethesda are pathetic IMO, PATHETIC!

I agree that the players personality should not usually be forced on them in a RPG. That's why NPCs, quests, dialog needs to have well defined options, responses etc. I could not give a damn about F3 NPCs, they are wooden, fake and only convince me that I am playing a game by not permitting me to suspend my disbelief in them. Dialog trees are essentially putting words in my mouth that I don't want to say but HAVE to because of the extremely limited dialog trees. NPCs spout the same canned lines over and over just reinforcing and further breaking my suspension of disbelief. NPCs don't react to much unless you steal something or attack. I will state my boiled down OPINION about bethesdas recent games (Morrowind/Oblivion/Fallout) they are about exploring not meaningful or interesting interaction or quests or choices and major consequences. They are about 'exploring'. You play the "role" of explorer. They are not RPG games IMO.
 
Ausir said:
Indeed, it seems like every place I read about this particular choice, it's always reported that Simms dies. Although I admit I've hardly read everything on F3...
Click to expand...

As I said, it depends on your (the player's reflexes) too much, and if you're not quick enough, Simm will die (regardless of your character's Agility or Perception).
Click to expand...

larp.jpg
 
I think the author wants his actions to mean something other than XP in a role playing game.
 
Per, your response is borderline 4too-esque. Though you need to chop it up and toss in some oddly apt mixed metaphors to complete the illusion.

Anyway.... The real issue here seems to be the general lack of consequences for PC action. If there were results for actions that actually meant something, we probably wouldn't have the random Internet guy saying "DO SOMETHING, YOU SONOVABITCH!" The game wouldn't seem so lifeless, pointless, even, and we wouldn't be talking about things that seem entirely too much like *shiver* emoticons to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top