I just finished Far cry 3 today and the last choice I was given and my subsequent decision had me realizing that somehow I cared about the character and whatever decision I made was for his benefit.

Spoiler

The choice was simple. Kill my friends and basically become the king of the Rakyat, go on killing, jumping off cliffs , swim in the sea and hunt animals or I could save my friends and go home with them. I chose to save my friends and the decision came from me considering what would be best for my character in the end and not what I as a player wanted.

I also realized that most of the time any choice based game I play most of my choices are based on what I know of the character rather than what I personally wanted.

Have you guys at one point or another found yourselves in a similar situation? If so, which game and what kind of choice was it?

A theoretical question. Lets say that there was a game out there in which your character didn't have to kill or hurt and get hurt in the process on whatever quest he was on but the decision is yours and whatever you choose will not affect your gameplay whatsoever there is no reward for not killing but your character will be affected. Question is what would you do?(Spec ops the line offers a similar situation)

I used killing as an example because it was the most common but the question could apply to game elements such as looting or stealing and such.

 

I tend to care about my character, and try to treat them well. Y'know, have 'em navigate conversation trees gracefully/hilariously, keep 'em topped off on health and full on mana or energy or whatever, have spare supplies if I can...

Well, shit, I figure it's the least I can do for the crap I put 'em through given that I tend to solve every real problem head on and, er, in a manner usually lacking finesse.

Though a bad game can truly make me hate the characters and start putting them through some shit.

 

When I was 8 I kept by Tamagotchi (sp?) at 5 star happiness.

 

I tend to care a lot about characters when I have a part in making and determining their path in the game. Commander Shepard, the Jedi Exile, etc. Of course that depends on what degree the game lets me direct the character, and how the character interacts with the world. I never really make psychopath characters in these sorts of games.

When it comes to characters I don't create myself, I guess I try to play as the character would act whenever possible. Let's use Metal Gear Solid as an example. Snake and Raiden are killers. That's constantly referenced in cutscenes regardless of what you do in game, so I never try to do a completely nonlethal run. But I never initiate a bloodbath or anything either if I can help it. It's out of character. They always try to sneak through undetected. I'll kill a bothersome sentry, but not all the guards in an entire area. Or look at John Marston in Red Dead Redemption. He's trying to leave his life of murder behind, yet is forced to return to it through blackmail. So I'll kill the guys I have to, but I try to limit civilian casualties as much as possible (which admittedly depends on whether the AI wants some sap in town to dive in front of my horse at full gallop). If a game would require me to play as a purely monstrous sociopath or something throughout the entire thing, I just won't play that game. I don't really derive enjoyment from that.

 

The new Tomb Raider is the first game in a long time where I actually care about the character I'm playing. I got attached to my Paladin in World of Warcraft and my Rogue in Neverwinter Nights, I enjoyed the story of Mass Effect and I'm still mourning the death of every single one of my City of Heroes characters, but in none of those did I really care about what happened to my characters in game. I get ganked on my Paladin? Whatever. Shepard goes down in a pitched battle? No big deal.

Tomb Raider has me actually caring about what happens to Lara. I keep finding myself going out of my way to not take unnecessary risks, taking the safest routes even if they're longer and carefully climbing down ledges instead of leaping off them.

 

Old games were certainly a lot easier, because there was one route to follow. Newer games with all their multiple routes...gah.

When I first started playing Deus Ex Human Revolution, I remember originally planning to take a non-lethal route through the first real mission. But once I realized how long that'd take, I just went in guns blazing. But afterwards, everyone back at the company office ripped into me for being a "mass murderer" and whatnot. I felt terrible. I actually found myself mentally trying to justify myself to a bunch of NPCs - they were terrorists! Very much tempted to go back and redo the level after that.

I do try to get into character when I play. Interestingly enough I actually struggle a bit more with games that are more sandbox-y, because they give me a blank slate to try to project my own self on. I find myself a lot more close to the character if they already have a defined character that I end up putting myself into.

 

I don't know if am the only one but I have never cared for my elder scrolls character. To me he was just an avatar through which I could interact in the world with and nothing more. Perhaps because they are usually blank slates with no histories or motivation.

On the other hand I cared about my warden in Dragon age and I think that's one of the reasons I will always prefer it to TES.

Has anyone else played the walking dead point and click game. Now there is a game that made you care about characters and it was awesome I wish more games invested in this rather than making you a one man army.

Spoiler

Am I the only one who immediately regretted killing the guy in the barn when you turn and see clementine there?

 

In most games I care a lot more about the state of the world and my NPC friends than myself. I have no problem with getting tortured, shot etc myself but if that happens to my friends I get angry.


For example I consider the ending of The Witcher 2, especially the one between Tris and Vernon Roche, unparalleled in game history because it forces me to choose between my friends.

 

I tend not to care too much about characters to start. And if they say or do stupid shit (cutscene madness, ugh), I start really separating myself from them emotively. But as a good game progresses I can actually come to care for them quite a bit, and will often spend extra hours on the game just to make sure the ending and their story is as happy as possible.

 

For me it entirely depends on what degree Im allowed to customize my character to in every aspect. The story line can still be excellent and draw me in even if I can't change a thing but if Im allowed to customize appearances, skills, choices and the like then I instantly form a much stronger attachment to the character. Instead of what feels somewhat like helping a movie get from scene to scene, I feel like I have to stop and weigh the consequences of all of my decisions before I make them.

 

I had a pretty strong connection with Far Cry 2 ages ago. I tried doing a permadeath run (which was actually possible due to the buddy system) and man that made me care about everything. I even got all fatigued and shit from trying to be constantly on high alert when I was wandering. There weren't that many choices in the game, but I was so immersed in the world it didn't matter.

Same deal with the Walking Dead (The good one, not Survival Instinct. Bleh). The overall story didn't really change based on your actions (aside from who lives and who dies, sort of) but it was presented so well I didn't care. I just wanted everything to work out ok.

Mass Effect is different. I care about the protagonist and whatever, but I almost always found myself siding with one extreme view over the other because that tended to unlock more dialogue choices. Sort of a weird contradiction. I cared about SHeppard personally, and I wanted to save the galaxy but how I did it wasn't so important other than choosing paragon/ renegade.

Tl;dr Being able to make numerous and varied choices isn't integral to a good experience. A well crafted, immersive world can do it just as well.

 

I've gotten quite attached to my Guns + Science character in Fallout 3. He just wants to find his dad, you know? D:

 

So, relevant to the original question: For anyone that's played New Vegas, did Old World Blues change how you treat your character?

Made me a little more cautious... Then Lonesome Road came about and that caution became mandatory.

 

It made me enjoy that he had some cool depth to him, even if his Courier's Mile package delivery turned out to be a very very very very bad move on his part. It worked, though, with how I played him beforehand, with a great deal of doing good things and occasionally seeking bloody justice (Hello, Benny. Meet sniper rifle across the lobby, reload save, meet it again, reload save, knife this time, reload save, Mysterious Stranger's Magnum to the face, reload save, grenade in pocket, reload save, carbine massacre the entire casino, reload, go through the actual story mission part.). It also worked when I did my crazy evil playthrough to get the Legion achievements, 'cause maybe this time he wasn't guilty, but had snapped after his mistake and lived life doing whatever he wanted now.

Long story short, I did come to care for the depth it gave him, and it made for a great story overall in the Ulysses saga; in the endgame I wanted to make things right on behalf of The Courier (So, you know, thus The Courier wanted to make things right) and told Ulysses as much, and it worked, we teamed up and killed things then went out for milkshakes, it was awesome.

Man, what a great game.