-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Larian Studios tells Baldur's Gate 3 players to stop being so boring with the character creator
- Thread starter Saucycarpdog
- Start date
OP
OP
Guys, it's just a light jab. People need to stop taking it so personally.
It's understandable that they would be a tiny bit disappointed especially when they've already promised more races being added in the future, something that takes time and effort. Looking at stuff like this probably makes them feel that effort is wasted.
It's understandable that they would be a tiny bit disappointed especially when they've already promised more races being added in the future, something that takes time and effort. Looking at stuff like this probably makes them feel that effort is wasted.
This has been blowing up on my twitter feed.
One of my friends has something interesting to say about it, which I'm inclined to agree with.
I think blaming players for not being more creative is simply the wrong approach. Larian should be asking themselves what people typically want to achieve from a character creator, and whether this result (generic white male) is the consequence of a) a lack of awareness of the depth and options within their character creator or b) the fact that their players actually, want to make a character like this.
I think the second option is quite likely. I imagine a lot of players simply want to imprint their own identity onto their player character. That doesn't mean that they're unimaginative or don't appreciate Larian's fantasy world, it may simply be the case that players are best immersed into a game wherein the characters resemble themselves.
I think the starting point here really would be to investigate within their audience, what would you actually want to play as? Outside of the context of the games UX, if you could just create a character, what would it be? Then from there determining whether they're able to achieve those goals.
In any case, it poses interesting UX questions and suggests that Larian still have work to do in order to better understand their audience.
One of my friends has something interesting to say about it, which I'm inclined to agree with.
I think blaming players for not being more creative is simply the wrong approach. Larian should be asking themselves what people typically want to achieve from a character creator, and whether this result (generic white male) is the consequence of a) a lack of awareness of the depth and options within their character creator or b) the fact that their players actually, want to make a character like this.
I think the second option is quite likely. I imagine a lot of players simply want to imprint their own identity onto their player character. That doesn't mean that they're unimaginative or don't appreciate Larian's fantasy world, it may simply be the case that players are best immersed into a game wherein the characters resemble themselves.
I think the starting point here really would be to investigate within their audience, what would you actually want to play as? Outside of the context of the games UX, if you could just create a character, what would it be? Then from there determining whether they're able to achieve those goals.
In any case, it poses interesting UX questions and suggests that Larian still have work to do in order to better understand their audience.
the point is that people in this thread are complaining about complaints that dont exist. i dont know how many times i need to say the problem is not larians post but this thread. i'll mock myself for my laziness and lack of imagination far harder than larian ever will since they still want me to buy their game
I think this is reading way too much into Larian poking fun to keep their game in the public eye.
Yeah people are being way to sensitive about this.
Shaming? Really guys? They were clearly poking fun at the fact that the most common character is "basic white guy", and that is pretty funny....
Shaming? Really guys? They were clearly poking fun at the fact that the most common character is "basic white guy", and that is pretty funny....
The type of folk who populate internet forums and live their life through twitter/online jumping from one internet drama to the next.
Even when I try to customize my characters, they still end up looking pretty generic.
But there are some gems out there who could give Larian a run for their money:
(This was always one of my favorites)
Yea I thought of Mass Effect when reading the OP. I usually go into a character creator just hoping to create something that doesn't look like a fallout ghoul in cutscenes. Generic is fine by me.
If Larian didn't want people to play vault dood they wouldn't have made it possible to play as vault dood, some of you are reading too much into this
At least for me, I've always gone about 40% female characters when creating (I'm male), 40% male that looks nothing like me, and 10% close to my looks (normally when the create a character is lacking in making something creative, so if I have to be boring, it's gonna look like me). Never understood the desire to self-insert.
Perhaps, though I did feel there's some sincerity to their closing remarks. 'We're disappointed' and 'we worked hard on this' doesn't have a 'poking fun' feel to it.
Also, within industry it's a super common frustration that game designers experience. You create this really cool tool for players to play with, then set these crazy expectations of what they'll create, and then there's often a mismatch between those expectations and reality.
So in that sense, I feel that it hits too close to reality to work as a joke, because it's also a genuine reflection of how a lot of designers really do feel.
Pretty much.
"How DAAAARE the people behind this game poke fun at people taking all the possibilities they have and making a basic white dude!?!"
Tis the world we live in though ...
I'mma make a number of characters but I do hope they have Dragonborn.
I feel I should note that this is Larian's CEO:
Larian's updates are deeply informal and filled with humour. That's been the whole public culture they've cultivated since their Kickstarters, years ago now. So here they have a little factoid that they can have some fun with, so they did. Like, it can be a genuine statement and also a joke.
Reading it as any kind of attack against Gamers is ridiculous.
This is why i always hated Blood Elves being added to the Horde, it basically let people just make generic white guy/woman characters in the monster faction.
if you give people a choice, they tend to be boring, my DND group is mostly humans too, im the only orc.
if you give people a choice, they tend to be boring, my DND group is mostly humans too, im the only orc.
That 'shame' tweet is something else. If you feel shame then just make a more insteresting character. If you don't, then just do you.
It's like Schrodinger's guilt complex in here.
It's like Schrodinger's guilt complex in here.
Reminds me of my very first Baldur's Gate 1 playthrough where I picked the most generic-ass possible character, male human fighter with the most plain-ass boring knight dude portrait.
Not really sure at what point my default character in games where possible became 'huge muscle lady' but I'm always disappointed when I can't be one. I was definitely a skeleton in Divinity OS2 though.
Not really sure at what point my default character in games where possible became 'huge muscle lady' but I'm always disappointed when I can't be one. I was definitely a skeleton in Divinity OS2 though.
Maybe they'll add Bullywug as a race one day.
Same If it's a choice I'll always go Goblin as well.
While it's non-core content...
A Wizards writer wrote up Grungs as playable characters for Extra Life
I feel I should note that this is Larian's CEO:
Larian's updates are deeply informal and filled with humour. That's been the whole public culture they've cultivated since their Kickstarters, years ago now. So here they have a little factoid that they can have some fun with, so they did. Like, it can be a genuine statement and also a joke.
Reading it as any kind of attack against Gamers is ridiculous.
I'm not suggesting that it wasn't meant in humour, but the fact that it is the way many designers think, perhaps makes it a pretty rubbish joke. Many designers I have spoken to working on a game with a character creator, expresses something similar to the the feelings in their tweet. Some mismatch in their use expectations, and reality that places blame on the user, rather than the creator.
It's also too easy to say what you mean, and frame it inside a joke so as to back away when people call it out.
Personally, I've seen swaths of features from games removed or altered because of misinterpreted analytics. Features like character creators, or co-operative modes outright removed from the game because a developer had someone in studio making remarks about how players experience the game, like those featured in that tweet (not using the feature they spent time/money developing). So I suppose that's why you're seeing industry folk speak out against it more so than others, perhaps because that mindset is a very real design issue, and for some hits too close to home.
Worst case scenario here is that other game devs see this and then say 'well, people don't use character creators anyway'. Justifying their choice in a single, white male protragonist. Which I think is actually a pretty likely outcome, to be honest. I reckon on more than one occasion, this tweet will be cited (internally) by designers as a rationale for not bothering with a character creator.
Last edited:
I had a laugh when I saw Larian's post, which I don't think came off as shaming in the slightest. The dev team always seems to have a good sense of humor. What on earth.
It does open a fascinating different discussion about how people approach RPGS, though:
I can understand that the sheer amount of customization options can be overwhelming, so if you just want to jump into the game you might just pick something that feels safe and familiar. Also, a lot of people do just seem to want to play themselves in an RPG, with varying degrees with much they insert themselves and their own choices into that world. (I always think of The Witcher 3, with some players saying they wouldn't want Geralt with Yennefer because they wouldn't want to be in a relationship with her in real life. There's a lot to unpack there -- also how bold to assume Yennefer would be interested. lol.)
For my part, I love making unique characters for RPGs. It's fun coming up with a bit of a backstory, and then making the choices throughout the game that feel in line with the character you created, as opposed to what you would do in that situation. I spent months planning out my Inquisitors for DA:I! The only exceptions with not experimenting with the character creator are when the default character design is much better than anything you can make, like the Mass Effect Trilogy or Dragon Age 2.
...It's good that BG3 is in Early Access, as I might need a few years to decide on a player character. The amount of customization options are insane.
It does open a fascinating different discussion about how people approach RPGS, though:
I can understand that the sheer amount of customization options can be overwhelming, so if you just want to jump into the game you might just pick something that feels safe and familiar. Also, a lot of people do just seem to want to play themselves in an RPG, with varying degrees with much they insert themselves and their own choices into that world. (I always think of The Witcher 3, with some players saying they wouldn't want Geralt with Yennefer because they wouldn't want to be in a relationship with her in real life. There's a lot to unpack there -- also how bold to assume Yennefer would be interested. lol.)
For my part, I love making unique characters for RPGs. It's fun coming up with a bit of a backstory, and then making the choices throughout the game that feel in line with the character you created, as opposed to what you would do in that situation. I spent months planning out my Inquisitors for DA:I! The only exceptions with not experimenting with the character creator are when the default character design is much better than anything you can make, like the Mass Effect Trilogy or Dragon Age 2.
...It's good that BG3 is in Early Access, as I might need a few years to decide on a player character. The amount of customization options are insane.
Jesus some people in here. I'm going to make the most ridiculous character and be an angle or yuor devil.
Larian's CEO, Swen Vincke, is one of the nicest guys in the industry. Read anything he's ever written, watch any video he's in. The dude's goofing around.
This thread is weird.
This thread is weird.
All the examples of weird goblins, rat people and what looks like Frog from Chrono Trigger make me sad.
Im guessing the characters are all kinda attractive humanoids because they wanted to use a standard for lip sync and body animations or something.
are the party members at least really varied like the older BG games?
Im guessing the characters are all kinda attractive humanoids because they wanted to use a standard for lip sync and body animations or something.
are the party members at least really varied like the older BG games?
I think a lot of people just don't want to fuck with the character creator at all. My theory on stuff like this and the majority of Mass Effect players being Soldier BroShep is that they just mash through all the menus until they actually gain control of Shepard.
Thanks. I appreciate this post. I was looking at this thing all night wondering what vexed me so much about it and you nailed it. The whole of point of UX is guiding players towards the experience you want them to have. Arguably that's the whole point of game design itself. You use the games' systems to influence a players' decisions in certain ways making them "decide" things that you want them to decide. When you have goals with your character creator, how can you successfully communicate those goals to the audience?
I agree that it presents especially interesting UX questions. I think that makes this unique as another example of developers attempting to guide players through an experience via external engagement (social media). By priming the audience with a notice about the character creator, more people are going to use it. And so the game doesn't have to have a motivator or a design centered around motivating character creation.
Yet arguably, we shouldn't need a tweet to prime the audience - that's what the game is for. It can guide the player through a thought process the designers have. I think the tweet presents it as a problem with the players, when I fundamentally disagree with the concept of "the player is doing it wrong". That responsibility lies in the developers' hands, not players.
Could you give me an example?
Oh dang, that's an interesting angle. You could test this from a designer's point of view by changing how the default is set up (randomized? or something similar). Then you could better isolate players' goals.
A couple of choice examples:
thats curious since i'm neither male nor white
you shouldnt project your own insecurities on others
I apologize for that assumption.
As a white male, I can safely say that it's still a boring-as-fuck basic blando bob.
This cannot be a real post. Pack it up guys, Larian is going to be angry.
If Larian didn't want people to play vault dood they wouldn't have made it possible to play as vault dood, some of you are re
the problem that assumption is that the default human designs in BG3's character creator are both black
