The center of the universe

[DArtagnan]

I wonder…

Am I the only one who doesn't really care about being "the center of the universe" in my RPGs?

I mean, so many developers focus so much on making me, or my character, feel truly special - and Bioware is a good example of doing nothing BUT that. It's as if everything that happens in the game, somehow MUST tie into your character.

Personally, coming from the old days of PnP roleplaying, it wasn't always like that. Sure, you and your party members often got involved in the "big picture" - but I recall several fantastic campaigns where we were merely helping out, or assisting those who were actually at the forefront of main events.

I think it's incredibly dull, to be honest - because it's so cliché.

I've always greatly enjoyed games that start out very low-key, where you're just helping some random village with some local trouble, and I think the powertrip is somewhat superfluous in many cases. I enjoy the opportunity to remain relatively anonymous for a long time, and even if the events can be of vital importance to the world, I find it off-putting that they have to revolve around me. Even with a modest beginning, the typical CRPG quickly turns into yet another save-the-world scenario.

I guess, what I'm getting at - is that I greatly enjoy having a limited direction, and the opportunity to simply have the universe be ME - and my own little world. My own character and his own goals should be my universe, and then I can help out or not - as I choose.

Does that make sense?

Also, I really find it dreadfully predictable that there always has to be some kind of god or supreme being behind everything. Why can't it just be some local greedy power baron, trying to tip the balance of power in his favor.

The Gothic games are better in this way, even if they generally follow the cliché in the end. But much of those games are about local people with plausible motives and down-to-earth aspirations.

That's probably one of the reasons I can't get into Torment, to name one example - because it deals with ridiculous kinds of characters and powers.

It's like it can't get over-the-top fast enough, while I was just trying to enjoy my little shiny +1 Longsword that I acquired after much hard work.

I long for a trilogy of games, where the ending is simply about resolving some local trouble - without the entire world blowing up and coming together again. Can't I have the game end with getting a sweet wife - and returning to the simple life?

How do you feel about this?

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

I fully agree. It's one reason why I really liked the Witcher - the things that were happening were big, and you became deeply involved, but they were political (and even in a small way philosophical) in origin, not due to an arch-demon or fallen god. And you felt that you were not the only player in these events.

It was also IN PRINCIPLE a nice aspect of the Oblivion story, where you were really more a helper and enabler for someone else - just that the execution really didn't live up to the idea (and there was an arch-demon behind it all).

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

I totally agree.

I long for a trilogy of games, where the ending is simply about resolving some local trouble - without the entire world blowing up and coming together again.

Try Drakensang 2 - if you can have it. I know it's difficult.

What we basically see here is maybe a niche within a niche - I think most people in the business consider RPGs as a niche (although I might be wrong, too), and what you want is just ... a fraction of the available content.

I think - although I can't be sure, of course - that the majority of people in the RPG business believe nowadays that RPGamers what the same as ... well, people coming from other genres like : Action.
I tend to believe nowadays that the *whole* business in the RPG rea believes nowadays that Action-RPGs = RPGs in general, meaning = "the normal thing".

Non-Action - I think - is believed to be simply "boring".

And the gap between those who propagate Action-based games vs. Non-action people just widens. More and more. I just see the angry remrks of people in the Drakensang forums about there ill be no more Drakensang game. And at the same time they are helpless at the thought that Drakensang 2 migzt ghave failed BECAUSE it is so few action-oriented and contains a "non-bloody" world. It might be SO different now that it might become some kind of a "secon PS:T", not in terms of depth, but in terms of being so different, especially from the current fashion in gaming.

The gap widens, but the indistry still ignores it, thus producing for the mass market.

Me, I was kind of "relieved" when I saw that the plot around Drakensang 2 was NOT to save the world - once again. It was kind of refreshing to me.

But the mass market might not want it. The mass market might still want big, huge, insanely big bosses to make them kaputt.

Right now, here in Germany, we have n interesting development among the Adventure Games genre. And that is that more and more non-mass market oriented games are being published. "Full Pipe" is only one example of them. The Adventure games market is in this respect the market with the greatest diversity right now.

And ... - as an editor of the German magazine called "c't" called it, the RTS genre consists currently of simply "more units, bigger maps, more spectacular effects". The "RTS formular" has become ... kind of congealed. Frozen. There is nothing new anymore. If you have seen one RTS game, then you have seen all of them.

We have currently a similar problem within the RPG genre. The "RPG formula" is kind of frozen. There's not much new there anymore. And the industry just doesn't see it. They don't see this kind of "freezing", but rather they are contributing to the "freezing" by producing almost exclusively for he mass market, which WANTS games that remain within this "frozen formular".

Because ... my theory is that any given market lso creates its own customers, so to say. People who are not given anthing new will probably - according to my theory now - that there IS nothing new out there - nd probably even worse : That the "new", the "different" things are not worth to be played, because they are maybe even too different. It's a little bit like racism : Racists despise everything that's not them, and that's too different from them.

So ... people might not want to buy different games because they are sheep. They probably don't even want things to be changed. And the business is happily strengthening their belief - by selling them what the want. No trespassing the border, please.

Which makes me think that the Adventure games genre might be the most intellectual genre of all video gmes. One needs a brain in order to solve puzzles, not just a fast mouse.
And if so, then I'm not surprised at all about games like "Full Pipe".

To come back to the point : Yes, I'd like to see games as well, that don't require my played character to save the world (again).

But maybe this is even High Fantasy - and High Fantasy is something people are used to, due to the dominance of (A)D&D.

Everything else is new, and yet different.

 

[Tragos]

I agree too, i was going to mention the Witcher but i see GhanBuriGhan did it already , in general i feel okay to be too small to change the world .
This is the main reason i like free roam games , playing the random dude going about his business instead of someone who leaves his sign over everyone and everything.
I think that "the big cause" is used to give a dramatic tone and scope to games and Devs got it right because people wanna feel exceptional, standing out , we play our RL role of insignificance every day , heroic shit kicks your daily problems out of the mind for a while .

 

[GothicGothicness]

I thought you liked to be the center of the universe DArtagnan

 

[pibbur]

I agree with you, there's too much "only one man/woman can save the world (or even the galaxy"). Not only in games but also in sci-fi/fantasy books. And movies.

Regarding PS:T, as far as I remember that game had a much smaller scope: Who am I and why can't I die. But I agree that the persons involved are somewhat weird, which is one of the reasons I liked it that much. (number one on my personal best games ever list).

One game where you clearly is part of something big, but has a smaller, supportive role is LOTRO. There are a lot of references to Frodo & co, and you do assist them, but you're never part of the fellowship. I like that.

I'd also like to mention Age of Conan, despite all it's weaknesses. But in the first part of the game, the liberation of Tortage, different classes handle different parts of the main quest chain. The assasin must at one stage steal an important artifact, other classes are just told that another one has taken care of that.

Most of the quests were still the same for all, which is why I found starting different characters boring after a while.

 

[DArtagnan]

I thought you liked to be the center of the universe DArtagnan

Only in your universe

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

One game where you clearly is part of something big, but has a smaller, supportive role is LOTRO. There are a lot of references to Frodo & co, and you do assist them, but you're never part of the fellowship. I like that.

What is imho great about LOTR as a story is this : Okay, there is just Frodo ... But his journey is plagued by difficulties, and he never has much of hope.

But the imho best thing about it is, ... - or was it The Hobbit ? - that the protagonist always says it was the others, who succeeded, kind of. Literally : "The old Legends has become true", with kind of implying "it was never me. It was always the others, the real heroes !

And THEN Gandalf says to him : "Yes, but the legends became true because you took part in them becoming true. They wouldn't have become true if you hd not been played your tiny role in them."

It's like ... understatement. The hero totally fails to see his own role in it. In everything.

It's like David Bowie suddenly no more being the pop star, but instead being just a member within a band called "Tin Machine".

 

[pibbur]

Yepp. I guess that was what he wanted as well.

Great band btw, thanks for reminding me. *browses to Tin Machine II on iPod, and buys "Tin Machine" from iTunes Store.*

 

[fatBastard()]

Well, I for one don't necessarily agree. I don't want to be an ordinary guy in games, I get enough of the in real life.

If you can make me a special person and still keep the scope small like in The Witcher, then I'm fine with that but let's face it: How many small village militia soldiers have you heard of that can take on anything larger than a wolf or a few highway men without getting "promoted" into something where his talents are more needed and thus shifts him closer to the save the country/princess/universe kind of story line?

But then again I have no creative imagination whatsoever. I can enjoy what others have created but I can't create anything myself, so the last thing I want is for someone to say: "Here you are. Do whatever you feel like."

If you're looking for at a game consisting almost exclusively of the first third of the Gothic games where even a strong wind could kill you, then no thank you. Only the numerous other great aspects of the Gothic games made me go through the excruciatingly frustrating and horrible first few levels (and still I'm never going to replay either of them from the beginning. EVAR!)

It's actually funny you mention PS:T as an example of how not to do it when the role you play in the big picture as the nameless one is exactly that of a small fish in a big pond.

 

[LuckyCarbon]

Maybe I'm just too jaded but I'm tired of center of the universe syndrome and my only motivation in a game is pure altruism. Life doesn't work like that, it's fun fiction for 12 year olds but I'd prefer something a little more plausible.

I always liked the plot of the original gold box Pool of Radiance for that. You party wasn't special, just another group of mercenaries trying to collect some bounties. Your motivations came from wanted posters and commissions. Even at the end of the game all you really did was reclaim a city from an evil tyrant just so different greedy politicians could be in charge.

Witcher is ok in that regard, a nice political intrigue story but Geralt was still very special at the outset of the story.

Dungeon Siege actually had a good character creation story, you were just a farmer who picked up a hoe and was trying to avenge his family after they were murdered (kidnapped?). It's horrible after that but I appreciated it started the game with you being just another schmuck.

 

[Lucky Day]

The Centre of the Universe is Toronto. Isn't that right, Corwin?

 

[pibbur]

Toronto? I can agree with that. Much of my work is centered around digital x-ray/x-ray information systems. We use software developed by Agfa/Mitra, and that department is in Toronto. At least it was last time I checked, back in '99 when I went there.

 

[Korplem]

I agree.

I've often wondered how a game would be if you were just sidekick working for the actual hero of the game. Obviously, in the game you wouldn't just follow him as a normal PC hero (busting into houses and ransacking the place, fighting rabbits to level up) but take care of the things that he doesn't have the time or skill to do.

Or, being just another guy trying to make his name in a game world, having a rival hero trying to complete the quest line for the fame/riches. Seriously, why is there only ever 1 hero/group trying to stop the bad guys?

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

I've begun playing a small game where you actually have to do a farmer's daily work, at least a little bit.

This reminds me of what I hear of "grinding" of MMORPGs, and I've noticed that "working" (aka "grinding" in some cases) is totally absent from singleplayer PC games.

It is kind of refreshing to me to NOT be fighting all of the time.
I'm currently playing Two Worlds I, and I begin to think too often about Bandits : "Oh, no ! Not THAT again !" There are far too many bandits for my taste out there, and they are camping almost ON the road !

I'm sooooo tired of all this fighting.

 

[Anderson]

My two cents... All things being equal, I'd rather play a hero than an average schlub, but it's a matter of variety. There are too many "save the world" stories out there -- so many that the "crisis" doesn't even register. "Oh, I'm saving the world. Okay." Something new, even a SPG (Schlub PG), would be welcome, just for variety's sake. I'm not opposed to being a muscle-bound hero saving the world/universe, I'm just a little tired of it.

 

[DeepO]

Am I the only one who doesn't really care about being "the center of the universe" in my RPGs?

I mean, so many developers focus so much on making me, or my character, feel truly special - and Bioware is a good example of doing nothing BUT that. It's as if everything that happens in the game, somehow MUST tie into your character.

Just to point out, I think you´re mixing two different phenomena here.
One is "the center of the universe", the other "the focus on my character feel truly special".
You play a very special characters in PS:T or MotB but they´re far from being the centers of the universe.

Personally, I don´t necessarily have a problem with the player character being a center of the universe, more important is a)when and b)how he becomes such.
The worst combination is a)in the beginning and b)because he´s a chosen one.
"Destiny" is probably the worst fucking word that can grace my cRPGs.
Presentation is also important - Gothic 2 dodges these issues very well with its lack of pathos and mostly down-to-earth tone. Of course, first Gothic is out of question entirely, you´re one of many in there, just somewhat playfully more agitated than the others.

But yeah, save the world scenario is generally pretty boring premise.
Now, change the world, that´s more like it .
One of the reasons why I so enjoyed Oblivion mod Integration - The Stranded Light was, that during its 100+ hours course player was doing exactly that - changing the world around from within. Its complex web of quests led to very different Cyrodiil picture and player sitting in his Telvanni tower in a secluded city, without really being recognized as a main motive force of changes.
The new picture and player knowing who´s behind the changes as a reward was more than enough.

If it has to be save the world scenario, what I wish for narrative-wise, is a game which lays the situation/problem/armageddon in front of a player so well, that it alone motivates player to stir things up without the so often present pc-guides spewing you must this, you must that ad nauseam.

 

[DArtagnan]

Just to point out, I think you´re mixing two different phenomena here.
One is "the center of the universe", the other "the focus on my character feel truly special".
You play a very special characters in PS:T or MotB but they´re far from being the centers of the universe.

Two sides of the same coin, really.

At least, that's my opinion.

If I'm truly "special" or mega-powerful from the start, it's the same problems I have with that - as being the center of the universe.

The problem is that I'm trying to immerse myself when I play a CRPG, and I try to identify with my own character. I can't do that, unless I get to "build" him or shape him.

I don't enjoy starting out as some kind of pre-defined bad ass with a long history. It doesn't matter if I can re-write that history or if I have an influence - because it's still not ME.

The Witcher has the same problem, for me. It's great to hear that it's not about gods or supreme beings, but the character was definitely very defined from the get-go. I felt like I could defeat an entire army by myself - almost from the moment I got into the game. As such, the game robbed me of building my character, and it robbed me of the satisfaction of shaping his personality.

That's not a flaw in the game, though - that's just about what I like and how I prefer the experience to flow.

Personally, I don´t necessarily have a problem with the player character being a center of the universe, more important is a)when and b)how he becomes such.
The worst combination is a)in the beginning and b)because he´s a chosen one.
"Destiny" is probably the worst fucking word that can grace my cRPGs.
Presentation is also important - Gothic 2 dodges these issues very well with its lack of pathos and mostly down-to-earth tone. Of course, first Gothic is out of question entirely, you´re one of many in there, just somewhat playfully more agitated than the others.

Yeah, we agree here.

But yeah, save the world scenario is generally pretty boring premise.
Now, change the world, that´s more like it .
One of the reasons why I so enjoyed Oblivion mod Integration - The Stranded Light was, that during its 100+ hours course player was doing exactly that - changing the world around from within. Its complex web of quests led to very different Cyrodiil picture and player sitting in his Telvanni tower in a secluded city, without really being recognized as a main motive force of changes.
The new picture and player knowing who´s behind the changes as a reward was more than enough.

Sounds great, haven't tried it

But yeah, I enjoy the opportunity to have a strong impact on the world, as long as it's within the realm of plausibility and isn't too predictable.

I'm a huge fan of emergent gameplay, and especially dynamic RPG worlds. It's a monumental task to build a solid dynamic world, with gameplay that is flexible enough to have both freedom and immersion. That's why developers have been moving away from that, just as they got started. Very rare to have anyone really heading for this - which is a shame, if understandable.

If it has to be save the world scenario, what I wish for narrative-wise, is a game which lays the situation/problem/armageddon in front of a player so well, that it alone motivates player to stir things up without the so often present pc-guides spewing you must this, you must that ad nauseam.

Agreed, again

 

[DArtagnan]

My two cents… All things being equal, I'd rather play a hero than an average schlub, but it's a matter of variety. There are too many "save the world" stories out there — so many that the "crisis" doesn't even register. "Oh, I'm saving the world. Okay." Something new, even a SPG (Schlub PG), would be welcome, just for variety's sake. I'm not opposed to being a muscle-bound hero saving the world/universe, I'm just a little tired of it.

I think that's kind of my issue…

Developers often think in these extremes.

Either he's a hero or he's a "schlub"!?!?

I mean, most of us here in the real world have the capacity to become both heroes or a waste of space. It's more about our choices, and what we do with what we have. In fact, I think most of us HAVE been a bit heroic, and we've wasted our lives as well. Don't you?

That's what I want in my game, you know.

I just want the opportunity to play around in a world, where there are no real consequences - but I want them simulated all the same

Maybe it's just that I find the concept of a hero too far-fetched and I could never identify with the cliché version of such a character.

Not sure why, and I've seen my share of Hollywood crap - and yet I just don't buy into that ridiculous image of the near-perfect being with only minor flaws.

I'm not looking for a game so I can escape reality entirely. I suppose that's the difference. I'm much more into experimenting with reality - or creating an alternate version of it - where I can try out what I could never try in real life. The opportunity to play with magic or science - without letting go of reality entirely.

 

[fatBastard()]

I'm not looking for a game so I can escape reality entirely. I suppose that's the difference. I'm much more into experimenting with reality - or creating an alternate version of it - where I can try out what I could never try in real life. The opportunity to play with magic or science - without letting go of reality entirely.

Sounds like you should take a look at Second Life