Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Actually I am kind of stumped

I know this cannot be as rare as my memory thinks it is. Yet for the life of me other then one card game (Red Dragon Inn) I cannot think of a single game where being perfectly average, or just average in general, is an actual advantage.

And I don't mean "not completely useless" or "broken" but rather where the character's averageness is a genuine advantage.

[Antioch]

I can't really think of one.

It really sucks because when I make choices like I feel like doing them I usually end up on average karma.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Well, Dwarf Fortress in the sense that your least average denizens are bound to die in some horrible way, usually through your own doing.

[Bouchart]

Lal from Alpha Centauri is about as close to average as you can get in that game and it works fine.

[itisnotlogical]

By definition "average" is not an advantage. Having any advantage at all... would make something not average.

In Hitman games (at least Silent Assassin, haven't really played any of the others) it was to your benefit to be unassuming. But 47 himself is still uncommonly skilled at a variety of tasks and has perfect aim with just about every weapon in the game.

[nogoodnames]

SpyParty might count, I suppose. One player is a spy who is trying to complete their objectives in a room full of NPCs while another player is a sniper trying to kill them. It's in the spy's advantage to act as closely to the NPCs as possible in order to blend in.

[Gabeux]

That's an interesting question. But average in what sense?

In Kenshi you can start in average, I guess, and if you become too rich (as in, build a base), raiders will go after that base. Still, I don't like the direction and eternal bugginess of that game, and my guess is that you already played that.

In Space Rangers 2, I always had a feeling that every time I started playing well, the opponents would compensate by magically upgrading to insanely rare equipment. In Space Rangers 2 HD Reboot, they put an option which the AI needs to purchase equipment instead of spawning it (or something like that) - but I didn't notice that until I finished the game with the immersion-breaking magical AI.

In The Guild II, at least from my experience, the more average you are, the less the AI will try to murder, kidnap or imprison you. The AI on that game is pretty meh, though.

I remember playing a game called Depths of Peril (by the same guy who made Drox Operative), and the better or worse I did, the easier enemy factions/monsters would get rid of me. Being average made things a bit more random/distributed, but that was years ago.

I may have missed the question, though.

PS: Can Factorio fall into that, too? If you expand and pollute too much you're making your enemies multiply in quantity and quality.

[Sonlirain]

Average can be understod in a multitude of ways.

Average as in being average in skills? Or average as in not being exeptional in some way other than skills? (Like playing as a footman in some generals army as opposed to being the general yourself).

And what would be the average skillset anyway? A character that knows a bit of everything (level 10 polimath. Can open a primitive level 2 lock, cast a level 2 firebolt swing a sword like a level 2 warrior sneak like a level 2 thief and cast healing spells like a level 2 priest) or a character with a realistic skillset... and if we're talking about realistic then what passes as realistic? Someone who works as a thresher in some village will know more about threshing than your average vilager ETC.

Real average just does not exist.

[Neonivek]

If a game has two attributes this character has a little bit of both.

If it is Mario Kart then it is Mario.

[Shadowlord]

Why would you want to play an 'average' character? That sounds boring.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Why would you want to play an 'average' character? That sounds boring.

This is the expression of American, British, and French creative narrative on the whole. East Asian narrative expression is even more severe in this sense. In fact, in the modern world most cultures and people would probably say the same. If you really are looking for something that focuses on "the average people" Look at Eastern European creative works, especially Czech ones. Post-Eastern Bloc countries--places where you really couldn't express the struggle of the average/normal person under communism--are usually good places to find this kind of idea explored more.

[Ozyton]

Why would you want to play an 'average' character? That sounds boring.

I like the idea of ordinary people overcoming extraordinary odds.

[Neonivek]

Average characters also tend to have an answer for everything.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Why would you want to play an 'average' character? That sounds boring.

I like the idea of ordinary people overcoming extraordinary odds.

Then you are extraordinary. Ordinary people don't overcome extraordinary odds.

[IronyOwl]

"Jack of all trades" or "well-rounded" are probably the terms you're looking for. I'm also fond of "balanced," but then you need to specify you mean in terms of stat distribution or skill tree investment rather than power levels. "Average" is going to imply being unexceptional rather than exceptional in a well-rounded fashion, as we've seen.


Elder Scrolls games have a shot at this, since your skills often don't compete with each other. You can focus on lockpicking to a lesser or greater extent while still getting use out of it, for example, and more importantly do so without meaningfully reducing you Axe or Conjuration skill. Playing a character that "does everything" is reasonably common.

I'm sure there's other examples, but none come to mind at the moment.

More generally, this is a common theme in games where you're controlling multiple party members, since while the characters themselves are encouraged to specialize to hell and back, your party usually tends towards the mean. It can tank, it can heal, it can pick locks, etc.

It's also more loosely applicable to anything with multiple moving parts, like empire games, though it feels like those tend to encourage you to specialize fairly often. An empire with balanced gold generation and balanced research and a balanced military tends to feel like it lacks a particular way to win more often than it feels like a stable, well-rounded entity with advantages over its rivals.


Very, very generally speaking, games that allow a lot of player control tend to reward specialization and games that force a lot on the players tend to reward balancing yourself out. If you can stab a bunch of enemies and then retreat to safety to heal, having a glass cannon becomes more effective. If you can hire a glass cannon to shoot your enemies while you meatwall it up on the front line, becoming a full tank becomes more effective.

Conversely, if Acid Ghouls periodically ambush you on the road and losing to them is costly, gaining acid resistance and the undead hunter perk becomes more attractive, even if you're normally fond of hunting Fire Boars and so lean towards specializing for such.