Octopath Traveler 1 makes a very big deal about being a collaborative venture between its 8 protagonists. Each is on her or his own individual journey, and the spotlight of the story’s narrative shines so exclusively upon them, that the game doesn’t so much have an ending as it simply has no more significant narration once all 8 main characters’ journeys are complete. Sure, there IS a final quest and last boss that unlocks only after that point, but it feels more like 1 of those post-game ventures that take place after a game’s ending, even if there IS no ending for it to follow.
And the game generally does quite well with this iteration of the Romancing SaGa and Canterbury Tales formula of distinct travelers sharing their path and stories with one another. But I do have to say...Octopath Traveler 1 could’ve done a lot better when it comes to the matter of actually choosing which of these 8 fellows will be your protagonist.
See, the problem goes like this: you have to choose who you want to be the protagonist, the central figure who unites the rest and is the constant in all of their adventures, right at the start of the game, before you know any of them past the tiny blurb the game gives you. If you’re the type that thinks a party’s figurehead should have a cheerful, can-do attitude and a story that balances self-reflection with a yearning for doing good, you’re not gonna know yet that Alfyn is your man. If your favorite flavor of leader is the cause-less soldier trying to rediscover what it is to be honorable, you won’t be sure this early that Olberic’s who you’ll want at the helm of the game. And if you just prefer to have the best character with the best story as your protagonist, there’s no way of knowing right off the bat that Primrose is the right answer.
“The solution to this is obvious, RPGenius, you dithering numbnuts,” you point out, of course, cruel yet rational as ever. “Just start a new game for each character and play through their prologue, then when you’ve picked your favorite, just continue playing with that save file.”
And that’s usually the simplest and most effective solution with this sort of situation. That’s how you do it to figure out who you like best as hero of Romancing SaGa 1. It’s how you figure out, in Dragon Age 1, that the best background for The Warden is to be the City Elf. It’s how you determine in Trials of Mana that it doesn’t really matter who’s protagonist because they’re actually all pretty boring. Hell, it’s what Live-A-Live basically forces you to do; 7/9ths of that game just plain IS the protagonists’ prologue auditions.
But OT1 is set up a little differently than most choose-your-hero deals, because your playthrough of the game necessarily requires you to go through every party member’s introduction story, regardless of who you chose at the beginning. Even if you decide to go with H’aanit as your heroine, you’re still gonna play through Therion’s opening story, and Tressa’s, and those of all the rest. Whereas in Dragon Age 1 and RPGs like it, you only see the origins of the protagonist you choose, and continue on with the main narrative once that’s over, the normal playthrough of Octopath Traveler 1 is to take you through ALL of its characters’ openings, regardless of who you selected. The only way you’d avoid such a thing is to not recruit the associated character altogether, which would be silly and counterproductive to the intent of, y’know, experiencing the game that you’re playing.
So you’re stuck with 3 possible scenarios here.
A: You happen to hit that lucky 12.5% chance and pick the protagonist you’d like best anyway, right from the get-go.
B: You’re stuck with the rest of us 87.5% schmucks, selecting a protagonist who seems the coolest and best initially (H’aanit), only to discover, multiple hours into the game, that the fourth main character you encounter has a way more compelling story and personality (Primrose) that demands that you start over because you just can’t see the game ever feeling right without her being the driving force connecting the rest together, which costs you all the time and effort you’d spent on it until that point.
C: You anticipate the possibility of B and attempt to get ahead by doing the play-each-prologue-first strategy discussed above that you’d employed against games like RS1 and DA1 and such...only to discover, after you finally get your real playthrough going, that you’re going to be playing through ALL those prologues AGAIN, meaning that you’ll be wasting even more time than Scenario B did as you retread them all!
I feel like it would’ve been so easy to find a solution to this problem, one where you’d be able to choose your protagonist for the rest of the game with confidence and knowledge of the cast, but still incorporate all of their openings into the full playthrough. Just off the top of my head? Instead of having each member be encountered during the travels of the others, start the game in a tavern, where each of the 8 heroes have stopped to rest during their individual journeys. The player can control a waitress or bartender who’s serving them, and with each stop, the protagonist candidate is invited to share their story with the rest of the tavern, which translates to the player taking control and playing that character’s first chapter as usual. Once all 8 are finished with, then the player is given the choice of who the primary hero of the game will be, and with that selection made, said hero makes the suggestion to the others that perhaps they should travel together, as each could help the others accomplish their goals. At this point, the game starts up properly, and you’re left to your own devices on whose second chapter to pursue first, where to explore, etc.
That’s a simple fix, and I feel like it would actually be a better storytelling approach--I think that the Chaucerian feel of the combined stories is better served if they all meet while already travelers, rather than getting stuck onto an ever-growing adventurer party like some bizarre narrative Katamari Damacy. Plus, the first chapter of each character’s story clearly feels entirely and fully like an endeavor undertaken by that person alone, without backup, and OT1’s setup where all but the first protagonist will actually be aided by allies as they go through their origin story always felt off, so with my tavern story-sharing scenario, the opening stories get to keep the single-person situation that they were clearly written to be.
Oh, or what about an opening in which the 8 heroes are gathered at an inn or tavern or whatever, and a local disaster drives them all to cooperate as heroic strangers to save the day? Over the course of this opening adventure, each character’s talents are a necessary tool to their success, and as each talent is displayed, you get a “flashback” to the hero’s opening story to play through. When all flashbacks have been played through and the day has been saved, the travelers return to the inn/tavern/whatever, and the player selects the protagonist who will be the one to suggest that they all band together, as they’ve all demonstrated how useful they could be to one another, and that they’re the kind of helping souls who would want to assist the rest. It’s a little more complicated than just swapping stories at the pub, but it’s another good way to establish the characters, band them together in a way that feels authentic to both the intended solitary nature of their origins and the band-of-travelers-on-each-others’-journeys feel of the game as a whole, and give believable cause for them to seek each other’s assistance--more than just “Well, you’re the first adventurer band to pass by, so I guess I’ll just follow the path of least resistance and join up,” at least.
Look, Octopath Traveler 1 is unmistakably a solid RPG, 1 of the rare (and always getting rarer) occasions when SquareEnix accidentally published something worth playing, and this situation is a minor problem that does not take away from the title’s virtue in any noticeable way. But at the same time, the way the game handles protagonist selection means that any player who really invests him/herself into the characters and their stories is probably gonna waste a lot of his/her time early on with the process of picking the preferred protagonist. And sure, you can very reasonably argue that maybe it’s the fault of such players as myself that we get ourselves worked up over something that ultimately has very little consequence...but I contend that an audience caring that much about the actors of a character-based plot should be seen as a good thing. Isn’t that kind of emotional investment from an audience a writer’s goal, after all? So it’s just a bit of a shame that Octopath Traveler 1’s set up in a way that the more engrossed you are with it from the start, the more likely you’ll be to have to waste time repeating origin stories as you figure out the right protagonist for you.
Sunday, February 18, 2024
Octopath Traveler 1's Protagonist Selection
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You missed one of the scenarios for choosing protagonist:
ReplyDeleteD: Look online to see who people recommend choosing.
I'm often guilty of doing that when I encounter choice paralysis. In Octopath Traveler's case (which I have not played, by the way), I'm not sure how much it would help. There's never a guarantee you'll agree with what others recommend. It could work or at least help avoid wasting time by trying out all the prologues.
As for the solution, it seems pretty simple to me and covered in this post. If the game forces the player to play through all the prologues, anyway, the developers may as well delay the choice until all prologues are cleared. I thought that worked well enough in Live-A-Live (disregarding the game being more about the individual characters' stories and less about an overarching narrative). Suikoden 3 does the same thing with choosing who the Flame Champion is, delaying the choice until the player's gone through all three main characters' intro chapters (I actually dislike Suikoden 3 and have some major gripes with how it handles the Flame Champion, but I still think it's good how it delays the choice).
I don't know how well a frame narrative would help Octopath Traveler since, again, I never played it. From what I've heard, its plot could have been better executed, and the sequel is supposedly much better, which is why I'm planning on just skipping the first and starting with the second one. I don't need to play every game in a series and only have so much time.
True, one can look online, but as you mention, it might not help that much. I find I often hold a different opinion on which characters are great or terrible than the majority of others - it definitely wouldn't have worked for me with Dragon Age 1, for example.
DeleteTrue, Suikoden 3 is another game that gives the player the experience needed to make the right choice...but it really annoyed me on this point, because the game very, very clearly considers Hugo to canonically be the one chosen to be the Flame Champion, and it feels like Chris and Geddoe are only offered as alternatives to be polite. Like, if you're gonna build a game around the idea of 3 equal potential protagonists, actually HAVE them be equal; don't just go "Your Flame Champion could be THIS guy.....................THIS guy, mind you...or I guess 1 of these other 2. Whatever. THIS guy, tho, amirite?" And for that matter, if you're gonna clearly imply 1 choice as better and more canon than the others, could you PLEASE make that particular option NOT the least interesting, least qualified, least developed one whose placement in the role adds less narrative depth than the others? What the hell idiot developer has the chance to make Chris Lightfellow the protagonist of their game, and decides to go with fucking Hugo?
Yeah I got some issues with that particular aspect of the game, clearly. But yes, you're right that it does give the player some proper time to feel the characters out before being faced with the choice the game doesn't actually want to be a choice.
Thanks for reading and commenting!
With Suikoden 3, I was annoyed by how much the narrative pushed Hugo as the protagonist, too, since I think both of the other two protagonists, Chris and Geddoe, are much better characters. Chris is probably my favourite of the protagonists, while I like Geddoe's group the most. I disregarded what the game wanted and picked Chris, anyway. But the problem with the choice in Suikoden 3 goes beyond the narrative pushing a clear favourite: the game mechanics also encourage choosing Hugo, since the three protagonists will only receive the True Runes they're most suited for if Hugo becomes the Flame Champion. Geddoe, in particular, suffers in this regard, since he loses his awesome True Lightning Rune (which is way better than the True Fire Rune) and the other characters are worse with Geddoe's rune. I've seen many people cite Geddoe as their favourite of the protagonists, but they get punished with a less effective Geddoe in battle if they pick him as Flame Champion.
DeleteBut, like I said, I think it's fine how the choice is delayed, even if that makes it so the developer can push for a favourite. In this post, I guess I also wanted to touch on other ways developers can screw up with these types of choices.
I'm going to hard disagree with you that Octopath Traveler was a solid game.
ReplyDelete1) I agree with the main theme of this post that Main Protagonist selection is poorly designed. And also that once you pick them, they are locked into your team forever. But wait, you're supposed to level all 8 characters, so you're main character is basically always overleveled while your other 7 are not!
2) The 2ndary job system robs all the 8 characters of having a unique set of abilities. "Oh look, I need a healer, so let me just put the healer set on this character".
3) The game does so much hand-holding with storyline quests that it is insulting. If the investigator/sleuth guy was all about being a detective, why should the game tell you exactly who to talk to, the flavor of that guy should have been that you need to go around and deduce the truth. Instead the game tells you exactly what to do. It's insulting.
(Those are the main 3 issues I have with the game, there's more but I'll keep it at that)
I'll give credit to the game for having a good battle system, but otherwise I think it's a move in the wrong direction for RPGs.
I dunno, job systems robbing characters of their individuality in combat is a pretty longstanding RPG tradition going all the way back to the NES. I'd say that just by having a single unchangeable skillset on each character to complement the 1 you give them, OT1's done a hell of a lot more to maintain character diversity in combat than, say, Final Fantasies 3, 5, 6 (let's face it, individual character abilities stopped being significantly relevant for most characters mid-game, and all characters by the late game), 7, and 8, or Bravely Default, or D+D and Pathfinder titles with an option to respec characters, or many others. I mean, you're not wrong, but it's peculiar to single out OT1 for a very common practice in the genre that it doesn't do as badly as most. Very small flaw either way.
DeleteAs for quest handholding, again, that's not really all that much an OT1 thing as it is just an RPG thing in general. Quest markers have had a pretty substantial presence in RPGs for decades now. I do agree that the clue-seeking elements of Cyrus and Alfyn's talents weren't utilized in a particularly compelling way and had way more potential than was realized, but quest logs and markers and dialogue prompts are present in RPGs more often than they're not and have been for ages; it's not an OT1 thing specifically. And this is only barely related to storytelling in a tangential fashion, so I'm not sure how it could possibly affect the overall quality of an RPG to begin with.
Nice hearing from you, though, MM! Hopefully you'll find another rant's sentiments more palatable.