A Predefined Protagonist & Character Creation Don't Work Together in Cyberpunk 2077

[Restlessdingo32]

I think the writing in the overall sense (plot, themes, etc.), and quest design, are pretty good in the game, there are a lot of interesting quests and the main quest is thought-provoking (re. what is soul, consciousness, etc.) and is about the same as a standard movie.

I think you might be right that the writing in the sense of the written dialogue often leaves something to be desired though, and the voice acting is variable - sometimes its excellent, sometimes the tone is off, but that's maybe to be expected if chunks of the dialogue are goofy. It's hard for an actor to interpret goofy

My issue with the writing is one moment I felt ownership of V and the next it's as if the game commandeered my character to progress it's narrative as it deemed fit. I cannot recall many, if any, other RPG's I've played personally with a supposed player built character where this happened. The narrative pushed events forward as it deemed fit, as they all must, but didn't dictate how my character responded to them in the process.

The brilliance of TW3 was it took an established, predefined player character, paired it with a cinematic narrative and still managed to create the sense the player was in the driver seat of that character. It presented various, and at times competing, options for the player to pick from to express Geralt. All of which could be argued as being a proper fit for that established character. None of this is easy to pull off.

I think an undefined player character can be paired with a cinematic narrative and made to work, while achieving this feeling of ownership over the character and providing interesting, meaningful choices. However, it's a much more difficult task to get right. CP, to me, was a mixed bag in this regard. In some cases it pulled it off. In others it flopped. I don't think it's a great mystery why. The way it was constructed simply didn't deliver in some cases.

Perhaps this is what the OP meant when talking about traditional vs non-traditional RPG's. If you wish to dictate how the character responds to the events in front of them, for whatever reason, then use a completely defined character and ask the player to assume this role. If you wish to give the player an opportunity to fabricate a character give them complete authority over it. You cannot do both. You'll inevitably end up with inconsistencies.

At any rate, I think the point is good that if you "fill in" too much dialogue for the player protagonist in an RPG, it squeezes out the space for the player to interpret who their character is. And V's responses are very often too detailed, too specific and rich, for the player to get a mental word in edgewise.

In a sense, yes. Regardless, much of this can be mitigated by incorporating enough options for the player when opportunities for making a meaningful choice occur. After all, voice tone, mannerisms, etc. tend to be a product of intent. Even if one type of intent does not fit what the player envisioned for one option another option might not cause such a conflict. Or, at the very least, hit the mark close enough.

This is a part of where the comment on interplay within the game came from. One player might not feel their version of V would wake up from bed after recovering from getting shot in the head, have their first real talk with Johnny and lose their shit on him. Perhaps this conflict goes poof if more options exist. Instead V could wake up and be dumbfounded with confusion with Johnny. They could have a more level headed response. One element, or the voice acting, might not fit but another, or more options, could mitigate the conflict and save the day, so to speak.

Alternatively, toss in a VO toggle. If you want the complete "cinematic experience" turn it on. If you want all things character voice related open ended put it to the disabled position. I can already see the bean counters reeling.

Of course, it does stand to reason pairing the right elements together makes the task that much easier. Using this as an advantage also makes a lot of sense.

 

[Kid_SixXx]

No, Shepherd is predefined by the voice actors and on-rails nature of the stories as well, the variations are just cosmetic, just like V.

Yes, but the cosmetic variations are important since ethnic players such as myself are tired of always playing Caucasian protagonists. We want to see "ourselves" in the game just as LGBTQ players would prefer to play a character that is more aligned with their own gender identity. Ironically, JRPGs are a primary offender as the list of fair skinned and blue eyed JRPG heroes is a mile long.

When I played ME, I did not play default Shep because he did not represent my ethnicity and the same goes for playing V. It did not bother me to play as Geralt in The Witcher games because Geralt truly is predefined by the novels that the games are based on.

I can grudgingly agree that the voice acting is somewhat problematic but if I as a player cannot handwave that away, I have seriously static immersion issues.

It would've been nice if CDPR had gone the route that Volition did for the Saint's Row games starting with II and have multiple voice actors contributing dialogue to the game so that you could pick how you wanted your character to sound, but that might not have been cost effective.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

It would've been nice if CDPR had gone the route that Volition did and have multiple voice actors contributing dialogue to the game so that you could pick how you wanted your character to sound, but that might not have been cost effective.

@AikoHayashi posted a link (here) to see the Cyberpunk "script size" in Japanese at least (it's big, really big).
So various V's voices (for V male/female) in each languages seem to be a really "too huge" work

Cyberpunk 2077's Japanese Dubbed Script Is Massive

Cyberpunk 2077 is big in Japan. Well, the script is.

www.thegamer.com

 

[gurugeorge]

Yes, but the cosmetic variations are important since ethnic players such as myself are tired of always playing Caucasian protagonists. We want to see "ourselves" in the game just as LGBTQ players would prefer to play a character that is more aligned with their own gender identity. Ironically, JRPGs are a primary offender as the list of fair skinned and blue eyed JRPG heroes is a mile long.

When I played ME, I did not play default Shep because he did not represent my ethnicity and the same goes for playing V. It did not bother me to play as Geralt in The Witcher games because Geralt truly is predefined by the novels that the games are based on.

I can grudgingly agree that the voice acting is somewhat problematic but if I as a player cannot handwave that away, I have seriously static immersion issues.

It would've been nice if CDPR had gone the route that Volition did and have multiple voice actors contributing dialogue to the game so that you could pick how you wanted your character to sound, but that might not have been cost effective.

I didn't mean "cosmetic" in the sense of looks, but "cosmetic" in the sense of appearance vs. substance. i.e. the backgrounds are just fluff, they don't make any real difference to the story, just to a few flavour dialogues.

 

[Kid_SixXx]

I didn't mean "cosmetic" in the sense of looks, but "cosmetic" in the sense of appearance vs. substance. i.e. the backgrounds are just fluff, they don't make any real difference to the story, just to a few flavour dialogues.

But nearly all games have this fluff to a certain extent.

 

[gurugeorge]

But nearly all games have this fluff to a certain extent.

Sure, but the bone of contention is that this game was at one time advertized as having the "lifepath" idea as more fleshed-out and meaningful (i.e. having a cost/benefit impact in the game itself), and that's what a lot of us were expecting (based on that hype), whereas what we got was fluff that's only slightly more meaningful than ME's backgrounds (i.e. there are a very few occasions when being of a particular lifepath opens up a slightly different dialogue/resolution route in some minor quests, e.g. Woodman).

 

[SigilFey]

The conversation is getting a little loosey-goosey here. We're not talking about quest design or people's opinions on the quality of the story. Those are separate topics.

What's being discussed here is whether a character creator works well with a game that offers a predefined player character.

We're also not discussing whether people thought the character of V was good, bad, or indiferent: we're discussing whether it's worthwhile to allow players to customize the visual look of their character if other aspects of that character are largely predefined.

General discussions/criticisms/praise about the game have other threads.


_______________

It is a completely subjective question - does a particular customization option 'work' with the voice and personality? For you the wildest hairstyles may not work. For others, some facial tattoos will not work. Others still would object to particular eyes, or particular chrome options. There never would be universal agreement about which options to remove. If we take out every option that does not work for any one player, that means removing ALL appearance options, i.e. removing the appearance generator entirely.

So we would be left with just one appearance, and what happens then, when that singular appearance doesn't 'work' for someone? Well, it'd be nice if they could change it, but the appearance generator has been removed.

So ... even if one feels that particular options in the appearance generator do not 'work' for them, it remains true that the game benefits overall from having them. Because then, no-one is forced to use options (or an unchangeable preset) that does not work for them, and, everyone is able to use the appearance that they feel most comfortable with. It's a win-win. Every other option is a loss for someone. For me, I don't want to be limited by what one other person thinks are appropriate choices. Let them make their choices, and let me make mine.

Absolutely! It's 100% subjective.

Now, there's the world of creative expression and successfully navigating a creative venture. While any artistic expression is a subjective vision by the creator, and any reaction is a subjective response by an audience, what any big, creative, business venture aims for is mass appeal. When my target audience plays my game, reads my book, watches my movie, listens to my music, sees my art, etc. -- does the majority seem to respond positively to it?

This is very much both a business and a science. There's a reason that casting directors spend months looking for actors that "nail" the part. There's a reason that a costume designer sits for weeks of pre-production creating multiple designs. There's always a carefully crafted vision that the production teams adhere to. This is foundational, 101-level stuff for any sort of theatrical or cinematic production.

For gaming, it's very tricky, as studios also want to ensure that the player is engaged and has a sense of agency over their characters. I've said and will continue to say that the best bet for this type of thing is to, "Let the player decide." It's the biggest factor in what sets games apart from film or stage or books.

But...

What if my game doesn't let the player decide? What if I'm crafting something more defined and narrative? What if I'm creating a character for the player, and that's the role that they'll be playing whether they want to or not? What if the player doesn't get to make those decisions?

Imagine if a movie let the viewer pause the screen and swap out just the appearance of actors, then push play again. Imagine if I could swap out Jack Nicholson for Danny DeVito in Chinatown, but DeVito's character still spoke with Nicholson's voice? Imagine if I was allowed to replace Sigourney Weaver with Jessica Alba in the Aliens franchise, but that character still moved and acted like Weaver.

It wouldn't work. Plain and simple, the vast majority of the audience would wind up feeling like something was really weird. It's the same consideration for a game. If the game is going to define a significant portion of the player character for the sake of narrative cohesion, then it's probably best to adhere to the tried-and-true techniques of developing a character.

 

[CS554]

Imagine if a movie let the viewer pause the screen and swap out just the appearance of actors, then push play again. Imagine if I could swap out Jack Nicholson for Danny DeVito in Chinatown, but DeVito's character still spoke with Nicholson's voice? Imagine if I was allowed to replace Sigourney Weaver with Jessica Alba in the Aliens franchise, but that character still moved and acted like Weaver.

If user makes decision that is counterproductive to their goal, enjoying Chinatown or Aliens the way you described, that's not on studios. Actually I think something like that might be technically done with deep fake tech. With options, whatever they are, they comes with certain responsibility to users and for CP 2077 I certainly see more pros than cons.

And what comes to majority, tons and tons of pictures in relevant threads on these forums and reddit tells that what they have in game is working, not only that but the most requested feature appears to be enabling character customization during story. If anything would be limited, it would make sense limiting that to certain things, as full body sculpting process is supposed to take weeks, if not months, but hair, tattoos, etc. some facial features, fair game and I wouldn't be surprised at all if CDPR made that happen at some point.

EDIT: While I think I get what movie example is trying to explain for user experience, it's flawed. Voice threw me off for a awhile.

Having different voice actors for male and female V is just something I don't see happening, they could perhaps generate different pitch from existing ones via frequency filter and compression but perhaps that's for modding scene. Jessica Alba playing Ripley like Sigourney Weaver, that would only matter if watcher has already seen Aliens with Sigourney Weaver playing Ripley. That is not the scenario with game.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

Jessica Alba playing Ripley like Sigourney Weaver, that would only matter if watcher has already seen Aliens with Sigourney Weaver playing Ripley. That is not the scenario with game.

Frankly this is the reflection I was going to do, if you've never seen it before (the original one with weaver), honestly Alba can do it without problem

 

[CS554]

Frankly this is the reflection I was going to do, if you've never seen it before (the original one with weaver), honestly Alba can do it without problem

This is sort of underlining what I have been thinking and trying to say. What some individuals, even me think of character creators should do based on character stereotypes based on iconic performances, like Harrison Ford playing Rick Deckard in Blade Runner, they don't mean anything but that those things were iconic beyond that. Someone younger might feel it quite disrupting to play character like that as younger generations has new, different icons. Older player might find it disrupting if his character would be like Thomas Jane's take about Joe Miller from the Expanse. That all isn't about but cultural context in our heads.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

or gaming, it's very tricky, as studios also want to ensure that the player is engaged and has a sense of agency over their characters. I've said and will continue to say that the best bet for this type of thing is to, "Let the player decide." It's the biggest factor in what sets games apart from film or stage or books.

But...

What if my game doesn't let the player decide? What if I'm crafting something more defined and narrative? What if I'm creating a character for the player, and that's the role that they'll be playing whether they want to or not? What if the player doesn't get to make those decisions?

That'd be the reason for for mentioning quest content, type of character, etc. Providing the player a heavily established and predefined character vs allowing them to make one of their own creation is very different in this regard.

Starting with the first, or a predefined character. The game deciding how this character is going to respond to a set of circumstances can fit. Simply because they are already defined and established. It's known how this character would respond based on that establishment. For the second, or a player defined character, this is out of bounds. It undermines the value of customizing a character in any way you are able if control over it will be taken from you to drive some element within a narrative home.

Imagine if a movie let the viewer pause the screen and swap out just the appearance of actors, then push play again. Imagine if I could swap out Jack Nicholson for Danny DeVito in Chinatown, but DeVito's character still spoke with Nicholson's voice? Imagine if I was allowed to replace Sigourney Weaver with Jessica Alba in the Aliens franchise, but that character still moved and acted like Weaver.

It wouldn't work. Plain and simple, the vast majority of the audience would wind up feeling like something was really weird. It's the same consideration for a game. If the game is going to define a significant portion of the player character for the sake of narrative cohesion, then it's probably best to adhere to the tried-and-true techniques of developing a character.

Danny Devito acting with Jack Nicholson's mannerisms and voice would be a real treat.

Various movies have been remade using completely different actors too. The same movie, very similar or identical events, different people on the screen acting the parts. There have been mixed results there. Those results are reliant on whether the combined efforts hit or miss the mark. Including whether those other actors can properly capture the original characters.

A movie isn't exactly an interactive video game either. As you noted in your post. At a certain point playing a voice-acted game requires suspending disbelief and making a concession due to current limitations. Resigning yourself to the fact you don't have authority over how the character sounds. Not that the player ever has complete authority over the character in any fashion. The reality is you're always going to be limited by a finite number of pre-programmed options in all areas. The trick is to do enough such that the player thinks it's theirs.

To use myself as an example.... I can play a RPG with voice-acting for my character and get past the notion the voice is not within my control. Provided I have enough ownership of that character in enough areas. The complete character creator package, opportunities for decisions throughout the game, how that character is progressed, how they are geared and what tools they utilize in any given situation, etc. All of this stuff has to do "enough" for me to become consumed by the character.

For some that might not be enough. For some lacking ownership of that voice might be a deal breaker. No matter what.

Your last statement is what I think the OP was attempting to get across (and why I've hit on other areas one might think are unrelated at first glance). Once you've defined enough of the character you may as well go all in with it.

 

[lyin321]

My issue with the writing is one moment I felt ownership of V and the next it's as if the game commandeered my character to progress it's narrative as it deemed fit. I cannot recall many, if any, other RPG's I've played personally with a supposed player built character where this happened. The narrative pushed events forward as it deemed fit, as they all must, but didn't dictate how my character responded to them in the process.

What RPGs have you played to allow such freedom of choice? Because outside of pen and paper with a nice/skilled DM I can't think of any...?

 

[Restlessdingo32]

What RPGs have you played to allow such freedom of choice? Because outside of pen and paper with a nice/skilled DM I can't think of any...?

It's not really about freedom of choice. The narrative is a collection of events. A happens, B happens, C happens. The game is in the driver seat for those events. A player created character is built by the player. The player is assuming the role of this character they've constructed. So any time that character is given a decision or responds to an event occuring it should be in the hands of the player. The player is in the driver seat for that character.

Since you mentioned PNP.... Imagine you were playing PNP and the DM put an event in front of your character. Normally you'd expect the DM to hand off control to the player and ask them to respond to the event. Now imagine instead of doing this the DM steps in and says "this is what your character does". At that point they've effectively stolen ownership of your character from you and decided how it's going to respond. This is.... wrong on so many levels.

If I reflect upon the bulk of the RPG's I've played in recent memory with a player created character I can't honestly think of any examples off the top of my head where this happened. Where my ownership of my created character was stolen from me to progress a story or convey a certain message. I can think of instances in CP where it feels like this is exactly what happens. The DM steps in and tells me how my character will respond to something.

In terms of the relation to the thread, I'd reiterate it's the complete package. The sum of the game systems has to succeed at creating the sense the character I've created is, in fact, mine. It has to create the sense I am "in" that character. Whatever they're good at, so am I. Whatever they're bad at, so am I. If they make a choice, so do I. It goes well beyond offering adjustments to appearance and slapping "character creator" on it. If that's all there is then don't bother.

 

[lyin321]

It's not really about freedom of choice. The narrative is a collection of events. A happens, B happens, C happens. The game is in the driver seat for those events. A player created character is built by the player. The player is assuming the role of this character they've constructed. So any time that character is given a decision or responds to an event occuring it should be in the hands of the player. The player is in the driver seat for that character.

Since you mentioned PNP.... Imagine you were playing PNP and the DM put an event in front of your character. Normally you'd expect the DM to hand off control to the player and ask them to respond to the event. Now imagine instead of doing this the DM steps in and says "this is what your character does". At that point they've effectively stolen ownership of your character from you and decided how it's going to respond. This is.... wrong on so many levels.

If I reflect upon the bulk of the RPG's I've played in recent memory with a player created character I can't honestly think of any examples off the top of my head where this happened. Where my ownership of my created character was stolen from me to progress a story or convey a certain message. I can think of instances in CP where it feels like this is exactly what happens. The DM steps in and tells me how my character will respond to something.

I see...
...are you sure you haven't dreamed all these RPGs, because I can't think of any?

In terms of the relation to the thread, I'd reiterate it's the complete package. The sum of the game systems has to succeed at creating the sense the character I've created is, in fact, mine. It has to create the sense I am "in" that character. Whatever they're good at, so am I. Whatever they're bad at, so am I. If they make a choice, so do I. It goes well beyond offering adjustments to appearance and slapping "character creator" on it. If that's all there is then don't bother.

....why? It just gives a choice for people that like different things than you. Why is that a bad thing?

 

[SigilFey]

If user makes decision that is counterproductive to their goal, enjoying Chinatown or Aliens the way you described, that's not on studios. Actually I think something like that might be technically done with deep fake tech. With options, whatever they are, they comes with certain responsibility to users and for CP 2077 I certainly see more pros than cons.

And what comes to majority, tons and tons of pictures in relevant threads on these forums and reddit tells that what they have in game is working, not only that but the most requested feature appears to be enabling character customization during story. If anything would be limited, it would make sense limiting that to certain things, as full body sculpting process is supposed to take weeks, if not months, but hair, tattoos, etc. some facial features, fair game and I wouldn't be surprised at all if CDPR made that happen at some point.

EDIT: While I think I get what movie example is trying to explain for user experience, it's flawed. Voice threw me off for a awhile.

Having different voice actors for male and female V is just something I don't see happening, they could perhaps generate different pitch from existing ones via frequency filter and compression but perhaps that's for modding scene. Jessica Alba playing Ripley like Sigourney Weaver, that would only matter if watcher has already seen Aliens with Sigourney Weaver playing Ripley. That is not the scenario with game.

Not exactly. What I'm saying is:

The voice and performance stays the same. The viewer is allowed to alter the appearance however they wish, regardless of the voice and performance that will be presented by the rest of the film.

I don't get to replace the actor. I don't replace Nicholson with DeVito. I simply see DeVito when I look at the character, but he moves around and sounds like Nicholson. I don't replace Weaver with Alba. I simply see Alba instead of Weaver when I look at the character of Ripley. I see a given actor or actress...but I hear the voice and watch the action of someone completely different.

This is exactly the same consideration for a game that provides a performance for a main character. If that character is given a voice and physical performance, there's only so much leeway in visual representation of the character that will work before it starts to become far to disparate to resonate with an audience.

This is very much fact, and it's something that has governed stage, film, and game design since...forever. It's why casting, vocal training, costume design, make up, etc. is so vitally important when creators visualize characters. It's why we have performances that win an Oscar, Emmy, or Tony while others receive a Razzie.

Very important to remember here is that it's still a subjective consideration, and there will always be audience members for whatever medium that have "eccentric" tastes. What's not subjective is the actual, public response to a piece. Either a piece resonates with a wide audience (mass appeal) or it doesn't. If my goal is to achieve mass appeal (not specifically target a niche audience), then I need to ensure I don't make decisions that may alienate my audience from the portrayal of that character.

That'd be the reason for for mentioning quest content, type of character, etc. Providing the player a heavily established and predefined character vs allowing them to make one of their own creation is very different in this regard.

Starting with the first, or a predefined character. The game deciding how this character is going to respond to a set of circumstances can fit. Simply because they are already defined and established. It's known how this character would respond based on that establishment. For the second, or a player defined character, this is out of bounds. It undermines the value of customizing a character in any way you are able if control over it will be taken from you to drive some element within a narrative home.

This is exactly what I'm saying. It's an if, then scenario.

1.) If I am going to write dialogue for my player character, select a voice actor to play the part, have only certain options available, and have my player character directly involved in the narrative execution of my game, then I need to craft the look of that character to the same extent. If not, I introduce potential dissonance by letting players customize the look of the character too far outside of the intended action and energy.

2.) If I am going to have a silent player character that is not necessarily playing any particular role in the wider narrative that my game explores, then I am free to include all ranges of visual customization options, as there is much less in the presentation of that character throughout the execution of the gameplay itself that will conflict or create dissonance with the player's vision for that character.

It doesn't require any sort of foreknowledge of the main quest or the character's background at all. It simply requires the options a player is given during character creation to be catered to what the game will ultimately present. This is all part of the "magic" of theatre. If done really well, everything seems to just blend together seamlessly, and the audience has no idea how much work went into it.

Danny Devito acting with Jack Nicholson's mannerisms and voice would be a real treat.

Various movies have been remade using completely different actors too. The same movie, very similar or identical events, different people on the screen acting the parts. There have been mixed results there. Those results are reliant on whether the combined efforts hit or miss the mark. Including whether those other actors can properly capture the original characters.

A movie isn't exactly an interactive video game either. As you noted in your post....

As mentioned above, "eccentricity" in tastes is perfectly fine. All that means is being able to find enjoyment in something that the "majority" of people would not. There's a huge market for this type of thing, but it rarely ever achieves mass appeal. This would be niche market.

The idea of actors playing the same role to varying degrees of success and public response is exactly the idea. If we take the actors/actresses who played James Bond or Catwoman, there are irrefutably favorites. That's the look and action that worked for the character versus the look and action that did not.

Also, these considerations will be generational, subject to cultural interpretation, and may shift somewhat over time. It's why something may have mass appeal for 20 years, then start to feel dated, campy, or cringey 20 years later. It's nailing the present market that's important.

For some lacking ownership of that voice might be a deal breaker. No matter what.

Your last statement is what I think the OP was attempting to get across (and why I've hit on other areas one might think are unrelated at first glance). Once you've defined enough of the character you may as well go all in with it.

That's my conclusion as well, pretty much. It's not that it's a generally bad idea to include wild and crazy customization options. It's whether the finished piece has a sense of itself. I don't think that V needed to be totally non-customizable -- I just think that it might have been better to limit some of the creative options to fit in with the voice acting, overall energy, and general execution of the character: young, inexperienced, ambitious, with a pronounced independent streak, but generally focused and determined to see a goal through.

That's a lot different from other characters that player may have invented in their minds.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

Anyway, if I take random Vs (there are over 100 pages of different Vs...) in the thread Share Your V! (Keep it Classy), they all work for V, for me at least
(I hope that the authors will not blame me, well I do not think so, since they shared their Vs)

 

[Kid_SixXx]

What's being discussed here is whether a character creator works well with a game that offers a predefined player character.

Yes, it works.

The only things predefined about V are stat blocks and a voice. It is up to the player to fill in the blanks of his / her appearance and adapt our individual playstyles to the game mechanics. V and Commander Shepard are tabula rasa for all intent and purpose since we can mold them in our own personal images, and this is important for players who wish to see their own ethnicity or gender represented in the game.

I suppose my personal definition of "predefined" is a bit more strict since I think of static characters like Geralt or Aiden Pierce aka characters whom we assume the role of and pilot through a game world without having control of their personal appearance. I pretty much stopped playing Final Fantasy games after I got tired of continually being stuck with a succession of emo bishounen archetype bad boy / lone wolf protagonists that constantly whine about being forced to lead. You are the hero, dummy. You are supposed to lead.

It is good to have games like Cyberpunk 2077 and Mass Effect so that i can create a protagonist that looks like me, even if he / she doesn't necessarily act or sound like me.

 

[Rodocastiza]

Anyway, if I take random Vs (there are over 100 pages of different Vs...) in the thread Share Your V! (Keep it Classy), they all work for V, for me at least
(I hope that the authors will not blame me, well I do not think so, since they shared their Vs)
View attachment 11258071View attachment 11258074View attachment 11258077

I feel honoured

 

[CS554]

Not exactly. What I'm saying is:

The voice and performance stays the same. The viewer is allowed to alter the appearance however they wish, regardless of the voice and performance that will be presented by the rest of the film.

I don't get to replace the actor. I don't replace Nicholson with DeVito. I simply see DeVito when I look at the character, but he moves around and sounds like Nicholson. I don't replace Weaver with Alba. I simply see Alba instead of Weaver when I look at the character of Ripley. I see a given actor or actress...but I hear the voice and watch the action of someone completely different.

I get it, but this still would only matters if watcher were seen original Weaver's take on Ripley and would be familiar with Alba. If there's no reference point, issue doesn't exist.

But... Spinning this around it's possible to make in Cyberpunk universe example: It's like trying to play V if he had background with the Elvises poser gang, and voice not supporting anything, tone, accent and manner of speech that should be there if V belonged to Elvises.

This is exactly the same consideration for a game that provides a performance for a main character. If that character is given a voice and physical performance, there's only so much leeway in visual representation of the character that will work before it starts to become far to disparate to resonate with an audience.

This is very much fact, and it's something that has governed stage, film, and game design since...forever. It's why casting, vocal training, costume design, make up, etc. is so vitally important when creators visualize characters. It's why we have performances that win an Oscar, Emmy, or Tony while others receive a Razzie.

Movie and show characters tend to be fairly static for quite a few reasons, stories where character ages significantly being exception. Game is entirely different thing, character can start with body 3 and end up with body 20.

Very important to remember here is that it's still a subjective consideration, and there will always be audience members for whatever medium that have "eccentric" tastes. What's not subjective is the actual, public response to a piece. Either a piece resonates with a wide audience (mass appeal) or it doesn't. If my goal is to achieve mass appeal (not specifically target a niche audience), then I need to ensure I don't make decisions that may alienate my audience from the portrayal of that character.

I think players who make quite wild decisions in character creation, something I remember from Mass Effect forums is the adventures of ugly Shepard and there still appears to be a gallery page for them. Those definitely fall into eccentric category but really, those creations has taken some effort. No one is forcing anyone to make their character like that.

I think Didacgomez idea about voice toggle with voice preview in character creation might help, but there's bit of a problem with story parts where V's and Silverhand's voice is overlapping each others in certain parts of game. I don't recall if there's any indication in subtitles what all is happening in voice department during those segments.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

The predefined protagonist with a heavy script behind him really was a bad call for this game.

A strong story with a cast of strong side characters is one thing, but this being an open world game really doesn’t come well tohether with a specific ”V” with whom the player has little ability for expression and to actually roleplay his/her own character.