Eh, I can't really relate. I don't think of the main character as myself, so I don't really care if they arent the center of attention.
You don't self insert as the main character? Do you self insert as the other NPC? Do you not self insert at all?
You usually choose a game medium to deliver content where the player has agency or choice. If the main character isn't the focus, then why even have them there? Unless your goal is the choice of leaving the main character out as a fetish, I.E. voyeur or cucking?
If those aren't your goals, then I'm not sure why an interactive medium makes sense instead of writing a non interactive story about NPCs doing things.
Actually, I'd rather the opposite. Blank slates are boring, so I'd much rather characters with actual personalities get the spotlight.
Because they can't write an interesting player character. Them overcompensating by putting the work into characterization between NPCs doesn't solve the problem that the character that you most see interacting with other NPCs is the main character and should have the best characterization. They skimped out on quality on the main character, which has the highest quantity of screen time.
- Is the main character so boring because Savin restricted what can and can not be done so much that the writers hands are tied? If yes, thats bad planning, editing and/or directing.
- Is the characterization well done, but Savin doesn't ask more from writers in the editing process? That's a failure on the writer to follow the characterization, and on the editor for failing to maintain the expectations of consistency.
- From my understanding, it is more likely Savin only focuses on editing and revising community submissions until they are good enough to get in, and most paid writers (tobs for sure at least) have their work put in without any revisions or editing done.
I don't enjoy the spotlight on NPC x NPC because it is a symptom of their inability to write an engaging main character within the constraints of the TF parsing system, which is simplified (pruned variations and TFs) and easier (improved parsing engine) compared to CoC1.
The whole point of a blank slate is for you to fill it in. The appeal is creating a character to go on this journey, making choices that shape the character, and at the end of it completing an unique character. Are they a hero? A villain? A paladin? A scholar? A thug? A lech? An average person? That's for you to decide. That's why people get upset when choices are taken away and when they force dialogue upon your character that doesn't fit them. You don't have to self-insert but the point of a RPG is that you're suppose to create a character. If you find them boring, then that just mean you didn't put any effort into creating them.
I'm not very good at the whole blank slate character either, but I don't really think the sandbox allows me to do much with it anyways. There's hardly any interesting choices for your character to make. The game isn't really written in that way. About the most interesting choice is probably pure vs corrupt, but most of the corrupt are dead ends at this point.
That may just be me being bad at conceptualizing a character, utilizing the indirect dialogue, and forgetting the interesting choices. It would help to know if you could give an example character, and how you felt the game contributed to your characterization of them?
How would that work, though? You'd need some way to poke the characters and make them go.
You would read a book where no poking is required or play a VN.
I'd personally like it more if they just gave the MC a more defined character.
Like Shepard from Mass Effect. Created character, but definitely had more of a concrete persona to work with, and thus is a lot more interesting to work into the story.
I think they would have benefited from going in that direction.
I get the point of a blank slate character, I just don't think they work well in video games.
I used to play a lot of tabletop RPGs, where you actually start with a blank slate and can freely create and direct your character. That kind of freedom simply isn't possible in a videogame. That kind of character in a video game isn't really "yours", their actions are predetermined from a relatively short list.
I just don't feel any videogame is immersive enough to really roleplay a character that truly yours, which is why I prefer Geralts and Commander Shepards and such.
I think they can work well enough if you make the game about branching paths and choice, but that isn't what they went for. I agree that you will never get the amount of creative possibility that a tabletop RPG can give you though due to the limitation of how a video game works.
I'm quoting my past post below. I think it covers pretty well what I mean.
Let's consider 3 approaches:
- Write the champion as a character with a few options sprinkled about to explore the champion's character.
- Goal: The champion is not the player's character, but the champion keeps the player engaged because they are a well written character. Arguably, they should be the BEST written character, with the most time placed into getting them right. This is because they are by nature of being controlled by the player going to be the most interacted with. They connect us to the world and allow us to care about it through them.
- The game is about understanding the champion through choice.
- Write the champion with branching dialogue paths in mind.
- Goal: The champion is molded by what the player is role playing as. It won't always line up one to one with what the player thinks should be said, but it fits well enough in the limitation of the game medium.
- The game is about choice itself.
- The champion has multiple personality disorder dependent on which writer is writing for them.
- No consistency is maintained except for vague notions of the champion having one or two adjectives describing them. The companions now become the first line of characterization.
- Goal: Lower the barrier to entry for community submissions and do minimum work possible as an editor.
- The game is about the companions.
Unfortunately, they decided to instead give parts of 1 to Cait and 3 to the champion.
If they went with 1 I don't think it would take away from sex scene variety either. IMO you could easily explain it by the champion really liking role play. Being dom/sub, masculine/feminine coded words, etc in scenes is all the champion playing an act that they think their partner likes.
You would then have to maintain personality/ideals in normal dialogue though, which the current 3 system does not. The champion should have a cultural background as well which informs how they act. For example, I find they are much too passive when dealing with Kiyoko/Kinu. A kitsune husband might act like this, but I don't see why the champion would.
Where can I find Tobs being a dipshit/bully? I keep hearing about it, and while I'm not doubting it I still wanna see it
Well, not as much about Tobs as I expected, but these posts of mine might interest you.
Tobs puts words into the PC's mouth (see response to 3rd quote):
https://f95zone.to/threads/corrupti...0-savin-salamander-studios.11371/post-5690316
Savin doesn't like Brienne:
https://f95zone.to/threads/corrupti...alamander-studios.11371/page-120#post-7522816
Why CoC2 (and Cait) Causes Such a negative response:
https://f95zone.to/threads/corrupti...0-savin-salamander-studios.11371/post-7050191
Lore Spoilers talks about Kiyoko:
https://f95zone.to/threads/corrupti...0-savin-salamander-studios.11371/post-4510778
Savin - Mods! and the Flipper handed idiot children (in spoiler: Response to Cerneu):
https://f95zone.to/threads/corrupti...0-savin-salamander-studios.11371/post-3976892
