Player != character, for one thing.

Should the game's world always focus on the player? Absolutely. (In fact the entire game should.)

Should the game's world always focus on the player character? No, because in some game the player doesn't even have a character, and in ones that do that character can be anybody.

It's just that most people play games to get away from their daily lives, so you won't have much luck making a game about playing as a garbage collector or whatever. :p

One thing that's fairly popular is to let the player character start at 'the bottom' and work his way up, gaining a sense of achievement along the way. I can't recall any games that do the opposite.

It's an interesting concept if the AI ends up being strong but if the player doesn't feel like he's having an impact then it can feel less satifying, a key component when it comes to why people play games.

FFXII had you play as a secondary character without much impact which really did hurt the game. worth looking into.

Quote:Original post by Beyond_Repair
Player != character, for one thing.

Should the game's world always focus on the player? Absolutely. (In fact the entire game should.)

Should the game's world always focus on the player character? No, because in some game the player doesn't even have a character, and in ones that do that character can be anybody.

It's just that most people play games to get away from their daily lives, so you won't have much luck making a game about playing as a garbage collector or whatever. :p

One thing that's fairly popular is to let the player character start at 'the bottom' and work his way up, gaining a sense of achievement along the way. I can't recall any games that do the opposite.

This helps explain it further, as I didn't quite choose the right wording for my question.

The game is still focused on the player, but not the character. That helps sum it up a bit.

Another idea I was thinking of, is the case of the Knight/Hero scenario, you're doing the important work behind the scenes, while the world is oblivious to your real contributions.

Example:

A village has been overrun by Goblins and has become deserted. The Hero sets out to battle the Goblins and re-take the village. He succeeds, but ignores the fact that some of theme scaped, and due to your rank, you've been tasked with cleanup while he heads back home to various accolades.

During your cleaning, some of the escaped goblins return with reinforcements. You manage to defeat them (The means may vary), and in effect, save the returning villagers from a potential ambush due to the Hero's Oversight.

A bit improbable, I suppose but I think it explains it.

Also, I'm not sure if any of you watched Justice League Unlimited, but there was an episode where one of the heroes was forced to do backup duty instead of fighting on the front lines while a villain attacked the city. Because of this, he came across a potential threat to the entire universe, and averted the disaster, while the rest of the heroes and civilians were oblivious.

^That's the thing... In that episode, the golden guy, I forget his name, took lead. Making him the main character for that little side story.

Yeah his name was Booster Gold.

And while he was the focus of the story, the world's focus was on the other heroes and the criminal attacking the city.

You know... the best way to describe what you want is... an untold story.

If you want that, take Final Fantasy Tactics in mind. Ramza is the true hero, but everyone perceives Delita to be the hero that saved them.

Quote:Original post by Slateboard

Quote:Original post by Beyond_Repair
Player != character, for one thing.

Should the game's world always focus on the player? Absolutely. (In fact the entire game should.)

Should the game's world always focus on the player character? No, because in some game the player doesn't even have a character, and in ones that do that character can be anybody.

It's just that most people play games to get away from their daily lives, so you won't have much luck making a game about playing as a garbage collector or whatever. :p

One thing that's fairly popular is to let the player character start at 'the bottom' and work his way up, gaining a sense of achievement along the way. I can't recall any games that do the opposite.

This helps explain it further, as I didn't quite choose the right wording for my question.

The game is still focused on the player, but not the character. That helps sum it up a bit.

Another idea I was thinking of, is the case of the Knight/Hero scenario, you're doing the important work behind the scenes, while the world is oblivious to your real contributions.

Example:

A village has been overrun by Goblins and has become deserted. The Hero sets out to battle the Goblins and re-take the village. He succeeds, but ignores the fact that some of theme scaped, and due to your rank, you've been tasked with cleanup while he heads back home to various accolades.

During your cleaning, some of the escaped goblins return with reinforcements. You manage to defeat them (The means may vary), and in effect, save the returning villagers from a potential ambush due to the Hero's Oversight.

A bit improbable, I suppose but I think it explains it.

Also, I'm not sure if any of you watched Justice League Unlimited, but there was an episode where one of the heroes was forced to do backup duty instead of fighting on the front lines while a villain attacked the city. Because of this, he came across a potential threat to the entire universe, and averted the disaster, while the rest of the heroes and civilians were oblivious.

this issue with that though, is the player may feel a lack of satisfaction, this could result in the gamplay not being fun anymore because of a lack in motivation.

I'm sure there's a way to make it work, but until you find it, the above is a strong probability

I've entertained this idea before and I disagree that saving the world is the most satisfying thing to be accomplished in games. Even in games where that is the ultimate goal, I get more satisfaction from tangential accomplishments. These are often gameplay based, but they don't have to be.

I'd rather play the underdog who stumbles through questionable decisions, alliances and schemes than have to play the hero who's predestined to undo whatever big event happens in the first act.

A cinematic example of what I'm getting at is The Good, The Bad And The Ugly. It's set during the American civil war. But the main characters are outlaws, not soldiers. Their goal is to take the gold and run.

The world's inhabitants either don't know who these people are, or they want them hanged. The world affects the characters but the characters cannot change the world, despite some very satisfying personal victories.

Quote:Original post by abstractionline
I've entertained this idea before and I disagree that saving the world is the most satisfying thing to be accomplished in games. Even in games where that is the ultimate goal, I get more satisfaction from tangential accomplishments. These are often gameplay based, but they don't have to be.

I'd rather play the underdog who stumbles through questionable decisions, alliances and schemes than have to play the hero who's predestined to undo whatever big event happens in the first act.

A cinematic example of what I'm getting at is The Good, The Bad And The Ugly. It's set during the American civil war. But the main characters are outlaws, not soldiers. Their goal is to take the gold and run.

The world's inhabitants either don't know who these people are, or they want them hanged. The world affects the characters but the characters cannot change the world, despite some very satisfying personal victories.

although the satisfaction or payoff only is impactful if the player has an emotional response with the world. one of the reasons having a game based soley in a personal group without the world interferring can have an even larger emotional payoff if the characters are done well