Do you also hate it when you are FORCED to play as other characters?

[Blackdragon]

When I play CRPGs, or other games with a strong emphasis on a protagonist, I usually want to play MY character. Ideally, if this character is customisable, but even if not (like in Witcher, Resident Evil, Alan Wake, etc.) I want to play as the hero. When the game forces me to play as another character instead, it instantly breaks my immersion and makes me hate these sections.

E.g., I loved Witcher 3, but I hated playing as Ciri (even though, as a character, she's pretty cool). I loved Resident Evil 4, but the times I had to play as Ashley felt rather cringe (though, again, she's a fine character otherwise).

However, if it's only a few short episodes in the entire game, then it's at least tolerable. Much worse, if these "alternative protagonists" eat up half or more of the game.

For example, I really did not dig GTA V, because constantly switching between three completely different protagonists was extremely jagging and didn't let me focus.

I couldn't even get into Alan Wake 2, because half of that game you are forced to play as a completely different character.

I feel like once you're invested in a character, immersed in their storyline, grown adept at their mechanics, the game suddenly forcing you to play as a completely different character is a huge turn-off.

This game, it seems is an example of this approach. You have three protagonists, but you can't simply choose one and play as that one, with others either as NPCs or as possible alternative playthroughs (like in Blade of Darkness). No, you HAVE to play as EACH of the protagonists if you want to finish the game, constantly switching between the three.

What is this, a hallmark of pandering to the Attention Deficit Disorder generation? Or a conscious effort by developers to strip players of their agency?

I don't know, but I don't like it. Which is why I probably won't be playing this game, even though otherwise it looks like an interesting RPG with Disco Elysuim vibes.

[Tarmack]

The beautiful thing about video games is there is a huge amount of variety and you can always find something you're into. It just sounds like Sovereign Syndicate isn't the kind of game you would enjoy, and there's nothing wrong with that. :)

[Blackdragon]

Originally posted by Tarmack:

The beautiful thing about video games is there is a huge amount of variety and you can always find something you're into. It just sounds like Sovereign Syndicate isn't the kind of game you would enjoy, and there's nothing wrong with that. :)

Sorry, but I don't need a developer to tell me "there's nothing wrong" with me not enjoying their game. Of course there's nothing wrong with it. That is completely besides the point, and came off as needlessly condescending.

Why don't you tell me instead the reasons for forcing the player to constantly switch their protagonists? You have three characters, great; why not allow the player to choose between them, and play that character to the end? Yours is not a complex game (to put it very mildly), I'm sure it could handle three distinct paths for each of the characters.

Or, why not choose one and make that your main character, with others as NPC companions?

Either way, there would have been much more "role-playing" and immersion, than having to be torn between three completely different characters all the time.

It seems to me that developers who do things like this, either don't respect the players and believe them to have extremely short attention span, or want to force the players to play a specific character, but hide it behind a veneer of "options" or "choices" (while in reality the player doesn't have any other choice except to play as that character for a significant part of the game). Sometimes, it's even straight-out false advertising (like in Alan Wake 2, where you spend less than half of the game playing as the eponymous hero, and the rest as an entirely different character).

So, what's your reason for using this mechanic in your game?

[Rufert]

I don't mind it normally but the way this game has done it has put me off a fair bit.

I spent so long running around as the lady when I first got to play her to finish the open sidequests telling me to do things that by the log seemed to suggest that it was available to do now. Slowly running around trying to see if there was anything new or new conversations. I got extremely sick of that area by the end and decided to just progress.

Then I'm to play the dwarf, and not only am I dumped in the same area, with the same things to click and look at for his slightly different spin on things. But I also learn he has a special mechanic where he uses the gears you've been encouraged to collect and sell as the other two characters to do various tech stuff.

And since it was the same area I had hoovered up all the gears that wasn't in areas specific to him at that point.

So I'm sat there having just left a half finished quest log, not able to find out if I failed all the unfinished ones until it loops back to the lady much later. But I'm also being punished for not leaving gears around for him with the previous character, something I had no way of knowing at that point since they're not involved with eachother.

I just got exhausted and annoyed and have not played since.

[jack_of_tears]

Originally posted by Blackdragon:

Sorry, but I don't need a developer to tell me "there's nothing wrong" with me not enjoying their game. Of course there's nothing wrong with it. That is completely besides the point, and came off as needlessly condescending.

Actually, you're being a jerk, dude. The guy was polite and just suggested that this game might not be for you. You are the one turning it into something more.

Games have mechanics. Some of those mechanics you will not like. Not all games can be the thing you want most, or play the way you have decided is best. Variety and trying new things is the spice of gaming.

[Isaac (Crimson Herring)]

Going to lock this before anyone feels the need to argue needlessly. EDIT: Unlocked, thanks for the feedback, still new to forum moderation.

Totally understand some people are put off by needing to switch characters and the intentional choice we made to do that in order to tell the story from multiple perspectives. I actually really like that about our game.

When I played Disco Elysium I wondered what it would have been like to be able to experience that story from other characters perspectives. What would the game feel like to Ruby, or Titus, or Klassje? How would their inner voices differ?

So we decided to approach this story from that perspective to allow the player to see the world and it's characters from different perspectives and to allow the NPC's in the world to react differently to these characters, have different relationships, to make the player think about how they might be perceived differently because of who they are and how they're dressed for example. Showing how different characters can experience the same places and people differently because of who they are and what their motivations are.

[Gerfreckle]

I don't consider this game to be a cRPG, more so an visual novel with very light adventure elements, so it didn't bother me too much, at least not in the way that it somehow undermined the roleplaying immersion (of which I didn't feel there was any). My main issue was that it was pretty underwhelming just exploring the exact same areas as the other characters did, right after they did it. I realise the game was made on a smaller budget and so they were limited with what they could do, but it felt very hard to motivate myself to keep playing when I knew I'd just be going to the same places over and over again, with very little difference in them.

[Blackdragon]

Originally posted by jack_of_tears:

Originally posted by Blackdragon:

Sorry, but I don't need a developer to tell me "there's nothing wrong" with me not enjoying their game. Of course there's nothing wrong with it. That is completely besides the point, and came off as needlessly condescending.

Actually, you're being a jerk, dude. The guy was polite and just suggested that this game might not be for you.

Saying "there is nothing wrong" with something implies that there COULD be something wrong with it. Of course there's nothing wrong with not enjoying a particular game, it's a thing that never needs to be said. And coming from a developer, it sounded entirely condescending, as if I was conflicted and confused about not liking their game, and they patted me on the head and said "Now, now, it's OK not to like our game". It simply shifts the focus of the discussion away from the rational questions that I was asking, towards an entirely emotional field.

Originally posted by jack_of_tears:

Games have mechanics. Some of those mechanics you will not like. Not all games can be the thing you want most, or play the way you have decided is best. Variety and trying new things is the spice of gaming.

That is all trite and doesn't need to be said either. Nobody ever claimed that all games should be the same. Please read my original post for a list of very concrete issues regarding this particular mechanic.

The point of my post was to express my own opinion about this mechanic and its implementation in this game - to which I am entitled as a Steam user and potential buyer - as well as raise a wider issue of developers using this mechanic in various games.

Attempting to shut down the discussion by saying "You don't like it, so shut up and go away" does nothing for both the player community and the developer community.

[GodfatherPlunger]

"What is this, a hallmark of pandering to the Attention Deficit Disorder generation?" While I think that this actually happening in the industry and especially in film (just look at some of the editing), I fail to see what this has to do with this game and having different characters.

[Xelos]

Originally posted by Blackdragon:

Originally posted by Tarmack:

The beautiful thing about video games is there is a huge amount of variety and you can always find something you're into. It just sounds like Sovereign Syndicate isn't the kind of game you would enjoy, and there's nothing wrong with that. :)

Sorry, but I don't need a developer to tell me "there's nothing wrong" with me not enjoying their game. Of course there's nothing wrong with it. That is completely besides the point, and came off as needlessly condescending.

Why don't you tell me instead the reasons for forcing the player to constantly switch their protagonists? You have three characters, great; why not allow the player to choose between them, and play that character to the end? Yours is not a complex game (to put it very mildly), I'm sure it could handle three distinct paths for each of the characters.

Or, why not choose one and make that your main character, with others as NPC companions?

Either way, there would have been much more "role-playing" and immersion, than having to be torn between three completely different characters all the time.

It seems to me that developers who do things like this, either don't respect the players and believe them to have extremely short attention span, or want to force the players to play a specific character, but hide it behind a veneer of "options" or "choices" (while in reality the player doesn't have any other choice except to play as that character for a significant part of the game). Sometimes, it's even straight-out false advertising (like in Alan Wake 2, where you spend less than half of the game playing as the eponymous hero, and the rest as an entirely different character).

So, what's your reason for using this mechanic in your game?

The best and the simplest answer to your questions is: because it is the creative way the devs decided to tell the story. Full stop. It's obvious.

[Stone]

Actually playing a written character is always best storywise, as it will be adapted to the story and make sense. It's nice to play a well written story instead of having a vampire barbarian that has zero vampire or barbarian interactions.

[Loo]

I really like being told the story from multiple perspectives. Playing as Ciri was a blast. Especially enjoyed playing as a monkey in Mother 3 and the episodes in Avatar: the Last Airbender where you see things from Appa's and Momo's point of view. It's a quite fun narrative technique.

[Xelos]

Originally posted by Stone:

Actually playing a written character is always best storywise, as it will be adapted to the story and make sense. It's nice to play a well written story instead of having a vampire barbarian that has zero vampire or barbarian interactions.

Very true. Unless it's done the way The Iron Tower did with Age of Decadence or Larian with Original Sin 2 or Baldur's Gate 3 where you can play as a prepared character with a deep background and yet you are left with the freedom to shape your character during the actual gameplay RP-wise.

[Grimkhor]

Originally posted by Blackdragon:

When I play CRPGs, or other games with a strong emphasis on a protagonist, I usually want to play MY character. Ideally, if this character is customisable, but even if not (like in Witcher, Resident Evil, Alan Wake, etc.) I want to play as the hero. When the game forces me to play as another character instead, it instantly breaks my immersion and makes me hate these sections.

E.g., I loved Witcher 3, but I hated playing as Ciri (even though, as a character, she's pretty cool). I loved Resident Evil 4, but the times I had to play as Ashley felt rather cringe (though, again, she's a fine character otherwise).

...

I actually also didn't like the Ciri sections but I like it a lot in this game. I think the difference for me is that if I have a character that has a classical build with many different playstyles it takes me out of the game. In this game you don't have builds really just branching paths so for me it is very enjoyable to have these little interactions like one character leaving a gun behind and the other being able to pick it up. In my opinion this is a rather good use of the mechanic for once.

[Dunathi]

Originally posted by Blackdragon:

When I play CRPGs, or other games with a strong emphasis on a protagonist, I usually want to play MY character. Ideally, if this character is customisable, but even if not (like in Witcher, Resident Evil, Alan Wake, etc.) I want to play as the hero. When the game forces me to play as another character instead, it instantly breaks my immersion and makes me hate these sections.

E.g., I loved Witcher 3, but I hated playing as Ciri (even though, as a character, she's pretty cool). I loved Resident Evil 4, but the times I had to play as Ashley felt rather cringe (though, again, she's a fine character otherwise).

However, if it's only a few short episodes in the entire game, then it's at least tolerable. Much worse, if these "alternative protagonists" eat up half or more of the game.

For example, I really did not dig GTA V, because constantly switching between three completely different protagonists was extremely jagging and didn't let me focus.

I couldn't even get into Alan Wake 2, because half of that game you are forced to play as a completely different character.

I feel like once you're invested in a character, immersed in their storyline, grown adept at their mechanics, the game suddenly forcing you to play as a completely different character is a huge turn-off.

This game, it seems is an example of this approach. You have three protagonists, but you can't simply choose one and play as that one, with others either as NPCs or as possible alternative playthroughs (like in Blade of Darkness). No, you HAVE to play as EACH of the protagonists if you want to finish the game, constantly switching between the three.

What is this, a hallmark of pandering to the Attention Deficit Disorder generation? Or a conscious effort by developers to strip players of their agency?

I don't know, but I don't like it. Which is why I probably won't be playing this game, even though otherwise it looks like an interesting RPG with Disco Elysuim vibes.

I only got this game for attitcus, none of the others. Its how i played GTA5 and other character focused games so when they switch characters without my say-so [especially without enough time with the initial character]. My motivation dries up.

[Syrris]

I don't have a problem with the by-chapter character arrangement, but then I didn't go into this expecting it to be like The Witcher or even Original Sin; my point of reference (showing how long I've been gaming) was Betrayal at Krondor, which not only had novel-style writing (a rarity at the time) interspersed with puzzle/decision/RPG combat elements, but had you switching parties of preset characters based on the chapter.