The Main Character's Interactions

[HotfireLegend]

This might be a tough one, both in terms of design and what the player feels.

In games such as Fallout, the player creates their own character and roleplays whoever they think the character is.

As such, in those games, you have full control (to an extent) of what the player says. The player character often never says anything additional.

This can be controlled by simply having your player model speak the selected line with the selected voice.

In RM, there is less freedom - conditional branches often have to be used, to show a different face, but a script from Tsukihime might mean less are required when dealing with additional options as well.

In any case, would you as a player rather be able to control all of your player character's dialogue, or would you be happy for the player character to speak a bit for themselves too? Would you be happy with this option if it was affected by the experiences the character has been through, or is their own opinion always required, regardless of having that experience or not?

This is bearing in mind that the game's direction is as of yet unforged. I do not yet know whether I should aim for a free-will game like Fallout or a setpiece game like Beyond Reality.

 

[MinisterJay]

I personally like the combo option. This way you please those that want some control, but do not want to do a lot of reading to make choices for every little encounter.

 

[Bizarre Monkey]

The third is the only really sensible option, I think!

 

[Cate]

I agree. The third option allows for an optimal playing experience! It gives a gentle guidance but also a sense of responsibility and unique experience.

 

[Micro]

A combo is great. I feel like I'm a bigger part of the story, but at the same time the character I'm playing also feels alive

 

[HotfireLegend]

So you actually would not mind for your player character to have some personality? That's interesting!

 

[Bizarre Monkey]

So you actually would not mind for your player character to have some personality? That's interesting!

I feel like this poll was like 'time to ask the big questions! before realizing the third choice was sort of a 'doy captain obvious man the helm!' sorta thing.

The first option is great if you can't write worth shit. (or it's a game about action, not words)

The second is great if you don't know what restraint is.

Keeping in mind, dialogue of a character can be done even for completely muted characters.

 

[Micro]

So you actually would not mind for your player character to have some personality? That's interesting!

yeah, I think it creates a very unique and interesting relationship between the player and the main character. say that the main character had a difficult life and became a dark person, maybe he stole from others or killed for money. introducing some careful player choice could possibly change this character into something different, encourage him to find true happiness without harming others.

or, you could simply just push him further down the path of destruction.

with a mix of both, it creates a partnership IMO. it would be interesting to see the different things you can do to change a character, give them little nudges towards a different path.

not sure if I'm making sense so I'll try to give a better example.... let's say there are optional quests in the game to help other people. you as the player can choose to do them, or not. if you DO do them, maybe it would unlock a special "Good" path choice during a major event. if you skip those quests, however, the choice would be grayed out.

stuff like that, I find very interesting in games. I like when side quests mean something--when the stuff I choose to do affects the game, somehow.

I dunno. I think it's a neat idea. it would make a main character so much more than just a preset guy who does what the story tells him to, but at the same time he wouldn't be 100% me, either. I'd have to work (play) towards changing him, if I wanted to. even then, you could always add a chance of failure if you didn't do enough "Good" quests.

ahem, sorry for the long post, I kinda got really into the idea. :) thanks for inspiring such a great discussion!

 

[Bizarre Monkey]

I've had the thought in my head for a while of a solo-focus game (that is to say, a game centralized around a solo character that player controls) that acknowledges the player, and let's him for the most part, take the reins.

But then... he's still the one in control. So if the player didn't establish a bond with the character-- well! Let's just say that things could get...
Interesting.

So the player could be a manipulative figure more than a direct controller.

Actually this is more or less the plan for Release (NNF). A nascent project set after the events of the 314th Clash. The "player character" will be either a cat, dog or book, serving as a familiar for "Wizard", a cynical sarcastic bitterly-natured grumpybutt mercenary who is only commanded via the 'actions' the familar uses themself.

He's slated to have very much a 'mind of his own'.

Some battles he'll sit out entirely, others he'll eager defend familiar. Familiar is a sheep to the players whims, but Wizard sees what Familiar can't. Since he's an older version of Spooky from Menagerie, I can have him reference the past if it feels fitting, example:

"We've met before, haven't we?"
>Yes
I thought so... centuries it's been. I once was like familar, you know?
Controlled by an external force, without being able to comprehend it.
Being played like a chump.
But Origin is no longer around to Govern my fate, nor yours.
You were in control once, but you won't be again...
Should you lead him astray?
Well, let's just say I'd rather savor the shock. But I can tell you now.
That you won't like it.
>No??
". . . Sorry. I get paranoid about these things."
"Regardless, heed me well, as you know I'm not a fan of repeating myself."
"You won't be in control of me, or you might, but that'll be past me, the only sheep you herd now, is my loyal assistant."
"Lead him astray like a certain player did me?"
"Well, you won't like what happens. You think your safe behind your screen, huh?"
"My powers expand beyond your narrow perception of a wizard. I'll shatter your pathetic views on how safe you think you are."

By the time I start working on release I'll likely be utilizing Unity, and be deep into the code. By then I should be able to check for saves, psychology will be in play.

Spoiler: Other stuff

This would also follow suit with Spooky's role in Menagerie of being aware of "player".

In intelligence, Pep is the one who interacts with the player on a conversing level. Tristy and to a very small extent, Rolly- make passing references to the player, Pep however, is the one to call them out and ask them as the gracious tutorial guide he is if he may be of assistance.

He does not however, seem to think the player or "Observer" as he refers to them, have any power over his actions, where as Spooky begrudges the player for being irresponsible. Spooky also calls it a false sense of power, as he seems to realize that the player may be in control, they also have very large limits to how much they can do.

Spooky, in the same way, though not as involved, is also the one who asks players if they know what the hell they are doing, whilst the other characters are only aware (and in most cases, to a very slight extent) of the player entity.

In Intelligence, Limbo after he reveals his true intentions, also has one instance in which he will directly ask the player a question.

In the closed beta ending, Pep asks "Observer" to help out the devs by suggesting anything they could think of to make the ending better, he also remarks that you wouldn't be here if you didn't acknowledge your purpose, and even references that 'he' wouldn't have you here if he didn't trust you, showing Pep is a lot more clue-y about meta-existentialism than otherwise appears.

 

[Micro]

I've had the thought in my head for a while of a solo-focus game (that is to say, a game centralized around a solo character that player controls) that acknowledges the player, and let's him for the most part, take the reins.

But then... he's still the one in control. So if the player didn't establish a bond with the character-- well! Let's just say that things could get...
Interesting.

So the player could be a manipulative figure more than a direct controller.

Yea I completely agree! definitely a great concept. pretty much what I was getting at as well. more games like this would be a good thing indeed

 

[HotfireLegend]

This is getting rather interesting. I think I have an idea of how to go about this now!

 

[Micro]

This is getting rather interesting. I think I have an idea of how to go about this now!

Awesome! Be sure to keep us updated. ^_^

 

[Iron Croc]

To be honest, it depends on the style of game you're trying to develop. Do you WANT a strong, silent protag? Like in Ib?
Or are you more in tune with a protag that talks up a storm, like in Mad Father?

To be honest, IF YOU CAN MAKE IT WORK, I think that BOTH ideas could work. But for poll's sake, I voted for option 2. :D

 

[Chibae]

i rather like bantering like in the dragon age series, but i prefer if the main character was included in the banter. I also like conversations to get to know the characters, like in fallout 4 and becoming good friends with those characters.

 

[Bizarre Monkey]

Yeah, character interactions are always one of my favourite parts of a game, makes them feel way more human.

Actually, a planned feature of Intelligence 314th Clash is being able to hang out with a multitude of the characters just as optional sidequests in the late game.