Why did the Devs make the main character one that could not be customized?

[darkhuntress]

Why did the Devs make the main character one that could not be customized?

For a serious RPG player being able to customize your character is a large part of the game. Not only that but most of us take the time to create our characters reason for being i.e, give them a past, some history and a reason for doing what they do. We also like to have them look the part.In The Witcher, players aren't given the opportunity to make the main character THEIR character. The Devs have already defined the looks and general appearance, including the gender, for you. There is no option for ethnicity, gender preference or even aging. Some like to play with a more mature character or others a younger one. It depends on what type of character the player wishes to role play. There aren't even basic options. You can't change eye color. In a game that is so fluid, the main character is static.Today, when so many more women play games as do others in different parts of the world, this seems a huge oversight, unless there was a reason. I am just wondering what that reason was. Opinions?EDIT - Someone just told me that it was because of the cut scenes, but I say it isn't necessary to show the face of the character in these.

 

[dokenkephalin]

I'm a serious RPG player too, but not all games have to be RPG's to be great. This is one of them; it's not a real RPG, it's not a story about your character, it's Geralt's adventure. There were reasons the devs made these choices, and imo those reasons were perfectly validated by the results.

 

[xellotath]

Heh, obviously you're not aware of the fact that this is based on a world which already exists in novels, The Witcher is a series of books by Andrzej Sapkowski (sp?)Characters in the game like Geralt are based on their descriptions in the books.I'm sure it wouldn't make much sense to say "to hell with the books, i want Geralt to be female!" (and triss to be a lesbian) eace:Could you imagine a Lord of the Rings game where you got to play Frodo, but had the option of making him a girl?This is already being discussed (to death!) in another thread - this is not an open world type of game where you get to create your character and name it, and decide where you want that birth mark to go. It's an interactive narrative adventure 8)

 

[tlazolteotl]

Geralt is cooler than batman, and I don't see anyone complaining about not being able to customise batman ...Ok, so batman games are terrible, but ...

 

[lovely_psycho]

I can see where you're coming from, DarkHuntress. In some ways, this game does bend the traditional rules a little bit. As a long time RPGer, I do have to say that I don't mind the tradeoff although I understand if others are not quite so forgiving.For good or ill, this game is about the Witcher, and not just a witcher. This is an interactive narrative about the most legendary Witcher of his time - Geralt of Rivia. As has been mentioned, the game is based in the world created in Sapkowski's books which are primarily concerned with the fate of Geralt. Lamentably, it wasn't until the success of the game that the book reading public of Australia were introduced to Sapkowski's books, but, well, as is written on my copy of The Last Wish, Sapkowski was something of "a European superstar" by the time the game came along I can imagine there would be a great many ardent fans of his works who might feel a tad ripped off if they felt the source material was tampered with.Could it therefore be argued that the computer gaming devs betrayed their target market for the sake of appeasing the book-reading public? Certainly. However, as both an RPGer and avid fantasy reader, I don't feel it as a betrayal so much as a compromise, but I do understand if others feel differently. :hmmm: If I recall my developer interviews correctly, I do believe there was once a time when the devs were considering keeping Geralt out of the hands of the gaming public and instead were going to give us a generic Witcher as our toy. I think that idea was abandoned when the devs realised Geralt was too balls-to-the-wall cool to leave out like that although I may not necessarily be remembering that correctly. Someone smarter than I might be able to shed some light on that issue And on the female thing, unfortunately in accordance with the books, only men could be Witchers (long story short, but it has a little something to do with the mutations and hormones the kidlets undergo in order to become Witchers, and probably some other stuff besides). It really wouldn't make any sense to pee all over that rule when it's pretty firmly established in the books. Again, though, whilst it would have been hardcore RPG to have the option, it could be argued it would have diluted the storyline. I mean, Geralt's physical appearance, his eye colour, hair colour, all that stuff is actually pretty important to the central rules of the Witcherverse.At the end of the day, the tradeoff for the static playable character is the robust and unique storyline, which I think is one of this game's primary strengths, not to mention the myriad of practicalities that were automatically satisifed by the static nature of the playable char. I'm happy to take the tradeoff but it's understandable if it's a compromise that's not to everyone's liking.

Geralt is cooler than batman, and I don't see anyone complaining about not being able to customise batman ...Ok, so batman games are terrible, but ...

True, but the upcoming Arkham Asylum looks pretty cool

 

[porsenna]

I agree with DokEnkephalin. Witcher is kind of RPG, but it is more related to old adventure games like Hero's Quest. Witcher is just more complicated and the story has much more intensity than average adventure games.

 

[tlazolteotl]

True, but the upcoming Arkham Asylum looks pretty cool

I wouldn't hold my breath.As a general rule, licensed games are terrible (I'm here, so obviously TW is an exception).If Arkham asylum turns out to be great then I'll happily buy it, but the odds are against it.It's one of the travesties in the gaming industry, 'cos licensed games are potential entry points for new gamers.I mean, they are certainly cash cows .. so lots of people who don't play games buy them.And because their sample size is so small, and their experience mediocre, they often conclude that games are not very fun.Experienced gamers know better, but due to increased levels of exposure, licensed games bring disrepute to the gaming industry.CDPR had the right attitude here ... they made a game that Sapkowski wouldn't be ashamed of.Sure TW isn't canon, but it still brought the right kind of experience to a new audience.There have been other exceptions over the years, though.Knights of the Old Republic (1 & 2) were decent. Star Wars, for those who don't know.Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers was good, but nothing spectacular.Goldeneye was awesome. James Bond.A few above average disney games, and there ends my list.

 

[Gamewidow]

Well said eace:

 

[Snusmumriken]

IMHO some of you put too much limitations in the term RPG, or define it too restricted. "Traditional" (paper-based) role-playing usually consists of creating your character from scratch, including appearance. But it's also very common (specially for games at convents and the like) that you are given a specific role and background, and have to deal with those "limitations". The role-playing element is what you do then within this setting. This is often done to accelerate and help out the actual role-playing among people that have never met before.The same can be applied for computer RPGs, and therefore The Witcher is very much an RPG. You are given a character and a background, but there is very much within the game that is up to you to "role play".

 

[petra_silie]

I think lovely_psycho hit the nail on the head Maybe I'm wrong but customizing a character in appearence,etc is a common feature in mmorpgs where you meet many other players, who all have the alternative to create their personal version of a warrior for example. Would be a bit strange if all warriors look the same with the exception of their weapon or armor ;D

 

[Seeker.217]

I think lovely_psycho hit the nail on the head Maybe I'm wrong but customizing a character in appearence,etc is a common feature in mmorpgs where you meet many other players, who all have the alternative to create their personal version of a warrior for example. Would be a bit strange if all warriors look the same with the exception of their weapon or armor ;D

I would have to agree with this as well I'm a old School RPGer Now if you customize TW it would not be the story of Geralt and his adventures. it would be the story of (put player name here) and that would take a grate deal away form the story line.And I dont mind the trade off at all Its like I'm the Actor playing the role of Geralt and giving the freedom to pick the path I want the role to go

 

[dokenkephalin]

I'd concede without necessary agreement, since fans of Japanese RPG's support you and devastating flame wars have been sparked and scorched whole forums over this issue

 

[zero_phoenix]

For a serious RPG player being able to customize your character is a large part of the game.

For a "serious" RPG player, being able to roleplay a premade character, with his own wants, desires and goals is a large challenge. One that many of us have embraced.Geralt of Rivia has a very distinct appearance. Letting people alter that, would make it all seem cheap.

 

[xellotath]

You have to compare The Witcher to the likes of Oblivion and Fallout 3 to see the difference.Those let you create, customize and name your character, yet do they have even a smidgen of characterization on the level of Geralt of Rivia?The Fallout 3 protagonist is known simply as 'The Lone Wanderer' on the web and of course there are no details about him (how could there be, it's a generic template for the game)Simply two different types of games, no reason either should attempt to be like the other eace:

 

[dokenkephalin]

You have to compare The Witcher to the likes of Oblivion and Fallout 3 to see the difference.

Actually you could compare it to Planescape and the later Final Fantasy games to see the similarity instead. Those are also considered RPG's (even by people who claim they're hard-core RPG fans and thus should know better,) they're stat-driven gameplay but with character-driven storyline, and the players are given pre-defined characters to steer through the narrative. In exchange for the freedom of customization and character development choices, you get much more depth of character and dialog.Also as noted above, The Witcher is already a popular fiction series primarily due to Geralt. There's no way it could be adapted without retaining him as the active protagonist.

For a "serious" RPG player, being able to roleplay a premade character

Eh, it's not 'serious roleplaying' when you're given a limited set of options to reflect a character that's pretty much going to develop as the author intended, rather than the player. It may be coincidence that the over-the-shoulder view is from the right side of Geralt, thereby putting the player in the passenger seat. That is not 'roleplaying'.The OP really points out the confusion of selling an adventure with RPG elements as an RPG -- the OP bought an RPG and wondered why it's not an RPG. It's simply not, but with so many other merits, why does it need such a label?

 

[Snusmumriken]

The OP really points out the confusion of selling an adventure with RPG elements as an RPG -- the OP bought an RPG and wondered why it's not an RPG. It's simply not, but with so many other merits, why does it need such a label?

Well, I disagree: it still is an RPG. As I said, just because you're given a role and a story doesn't make it just "an adventure with RPG elements". The increased freedom you are given in games like Oblivion/FO3 aren't necessary give a game that label - it's simply another school. With your definition, not even a game like Baldur's Gate should be seen as an RPG: it also has a given background and story, with "chapters" (more or less). The difference is somewhat more character customization, but I'm not the one to say where the line is drawn there.

 

[dokenkephalin]

I'm not the one to say where the line is drawn there.

But that's where the line was drawn, and then it was blurred by software distributors seeking the dollars the RPG genre is supposed to imply, by fans for whom it shouldn't even matter, and by software reviewers with their thumbs up their butts. And so consumer/gamer confusion ensues...see original post for an example.

 

[xellotath]

You have to compare The Witcher to the likes of Oblivion and Fallout 3 to see the difference.

Actually you could compare it to Planescape and the later Final Fantasy games to see the similarity instead.

I was comparing it to those games because you create your character from scratch in them choose race / gender / facial hair.. etc (what the OP is referring to i assume), i don't know about Planescape but you don't do that in Final Fantasy.

The increased freedom you are given in games like Oblivion/FO3 aren't necessary give a game that label - it's simply another school.

Exactly, both of these types of games are of course RPG but oblivion and fallout come with extra tags, such as 'dynamic open world', 'sandbox gameplay' and stuff, and they sacrifice the protagonist depth as a result.Trying to say which is better is down to preference, and as they say, apples and oranges eace:

 

[dokenkephalin]

Please note that 'dynamic open world' and 'sandbox gameplay' were coined to describe games that weren't RPG's, and would've been redundant to call an RPG an open world -- up to that point, that was one of RPG's defining characteristics.

 

[tlazolteotl]

A lot of crpgs put you on a rail. They're labelled linear rpgs.However, non-linear is often a selling point in the genre, so crpgs often shove you in 1 direction.Note: Being able to backtrack in order to level-grind or accumulate items is not open world.