75 réponses à ce sujet

[Noir201]

Also, rude of me so sorry i didn't say sooner, thanks Saibh for going to the trouble of writing the list down on the forum, you have my thanks as i hope the rest do

[Maverick827]

I agree that Master Chief is probably the most iconic character of this generation, but then again, Jar Jar Binks was probably the most iconic character of the Star Wars prequel trilogy.

[Saibh]

To clarify, this is part of the opening of the article that makes me really think Master Chief doesn't belong:

"After years of being unfavorably compared to Hollywood, suddenly games are able to tell stories as deep and complex as their celluloid rivals. With next-gen graphics that enable developers to tap into the subtle communication of body language, game characters can emote in a way that was unthinkable just a decade ago. An increase focus on strong writing has given these digital actors scripts filled with nuance. As we go along on amazing journeys with this new generation of gaming icons, we're often touched by the joy, pain, and regret they experience. With all due respect to the heroes that helped build this industry into what it is today, modern games have the best, most full realized characters we've ever seen."

The list is very poorly defined. Is it the most influential? Iconic? Popular? Best-written (which would explain Loghain's placement)?

Modifié par Saibh, 13 novembre 2010 - 08:16 .

[Ulathar]

lol I don't even know who half of the top 10 are xD

Niko Bellic is way to high up that list, imo, though. I mean every single BW character alone is better than him - again imo. ^^

[Lord_Valandil]

Saibh wrote...

To clarify, this is part of the opening of the article that makes me really think Master Chief doesn't belong:

"After years of being unfavorably compared to Hollywood, suddenly games are able to tell stories as deep and complex as their celluloid rivals. With next-gen graphics that enable developers to tap into the subtle communication of body language, game characters can emote in a way that was unthinkable just a decade ago. An increase focus on strong writing has given these digital actors scripts filled with nuance. As we go along on amazing journeys with this new generation of gaming icons, we're often touched by the joy, pain, and regret they experience. With all due respect to the heroes that helped build this industry into what it is today, modern games have the best, most full realized characters we've ever seen."

The list is very poorly defined. Is it the most influential? Iconic? Popular? Best-written (which would explain Loghain's placement)?

Well, the Halo franchise speaks for itself.
It saved the Xbox's life, and proved that it's possible to have good FPS on consoles.
Also...call me a softy, but the dramatic moments in Halo 3 really touched me (and caused me pain).

But yeah, I agree. The list is poorly defined.

[Noir201]

Lord_Valandil wrote...

I disagree.
The fact that they appear on tv, ads and previews is called marketing, you know?

Indeed Marketing, i,e to market a product or item, so it gets you to buy in to it, so when a company spreads ads, spending so much money in order to get as many people to buy it, Halo i,e, atleast the first one, was a fantasic game, the main char however, was the most lifeless boring shell ever in a video game.

Which means the death of great chars in video games in order to Market to make as much money as you can, Halo game is a Defined game of the decade, the char is a joke.

[Lord_Valandil]

Noir201 wrote...
 the char is a joke.

Meh. That's just your opinion, and I respect it, but I don't share it.

[Saibh]

Lord_Valandil wrote...

Well, the Halo franchise speaks for itself.
It saved the Xbox's life, and proved that it's possible to have good FPS on consoles.
Also...call me a softy, but the dramatic moments in Halo 3 really touched me (and caused me pain).

But yeah, I agree. The list is poorly defined.

What gets me is that it's not about a series, it's about the characters. Before the article was released, GI said that they it wasn't really a popularity contest, but a quality contest. Master Chief as a character is not worthy of the number four spot. The series he is in is certainly influential, but he as a character doesn't deserve to be so high.

Of course, they were so ambiguous (how do you define "defined", here?) it ended up being a mix between popularity contest and writing quality. Andrew Ryan is an excellent character. Ezio is somewhat memorable, but mostly in the context of his game. His exact character in a game that wasn't so good wouldn't be regarded as highly. There's nothing special or unique about him.

[Apollo Starflare]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Jolee Bindo thinks this list is bull****.  Mordin Solus too busy to notice his glaring omission.

You just named my two favourite party members from their respective games. I like you.

Edit: Reading the quote above from the magazine it seems even more silly to place characters like Master Chief and Kratos that high up. I have already said I have respect for the Halo series, and I've never played God of War, but to me those games represent the games industry's 'Hollywood Blockbuster', they are AAA titles that are very good at flashy dramatic action and technically highly proficient. However, do they represent deep well written plots and characterisation, or do they consider or discuss various significant issues (be they modern day, political, philosophical, whatever)? Not that I can see. They are popcorn games. Even the Call of Duty series which is touted as being great at storytelling seems to just box up any potential real world commentary in a flashy exploding helicopter box.

Modifié par Apollo Starflare, 13 novembre 2010 - 08:39 .

[Lord_Valandil]

Saibh wrote...

Master Chief as a character is not worthy of the number four spot. The series he is in is certainly influential, but he as a character doesn't deserve to be so high.

Why?

[Saibh]

Lord_Valandil wrote...

Saibh wrote...

Master Chief as a character is not worthy of the number four spot. The series he is in is certainly influential, but he as a character doesn't deserve to be so high.

Why?

Because he isn't really a character. He's a tool. I'm sort of inconclusive about Shepard's spot, as well, but at least s/he does have a (ill-defined) character.

Here's what the lead writer has to say:

"I think the advantage we have with the Chief is that he's kind of bifurcated; he is a strong, silent type with an actual machismo personality and a get-the-job-done tone of voice. He's also so quiet and so invisible, literally, that the player gets to pretend they're the chief. The player gets to inhabit those shoes - men and women can apply their own personality. In a way, that makes it very easy for the writer; they don't have to define the Chief's personality."

So, essentially he has no personality. He can be anyone. So, at the same time, he's no one. And this nets him a number four spot?

Modifié par Saibh, 13 novembre 2010 - 08:38 .

[upsettingshorts]

If they can't include Gordon Freeman, Master Chief should fall under the same umbrella.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 13 novembre 2010 - 08:43 .

[Loerwyn]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

If they can't include Gordon Freeman, Master Chief should to fall under the same umbrella.

Half-Life came out in 1998, so it wouldn't qualify.

[Lord_Valandil]

Saibh wrote...

Because he isn't really a character. He's a tool. I'm sort of inconclusive about Shepard's spot, as well, but at least s/he does have a (ill-defined) character.

Here's what the lead writer has to say:

"I think the advantage we have with the Chief is that he's kind of bifurcated; he is a strong, silent type with an actual machismo personality and a get-the-job-done tone of voice. He's also so quiet and so invisible, literally, that the player gets to pretend they're the chief. The player gets to inhabit those shoes - men and women can apply their own personality. In a way, that makes it very easy for the writer; they don't have to define the Chief's personality."

So, essentially he has no personality. He can be anyone. So, at the same time, he's no one. And this nets him a number four spot?

Fair enough.
But his personality (and character) is explored in the books and comics. I know, I know, the books and comics aren't games, but they are a part of the game universe, the same way The Stolen Throne and The Calling work for Dragon Age.
He's a silent character (mostly), but also shows moments of fear/weakness, determination to fulfill the missions and even a sense of humor. I'm not saying that he's the best written character ever, and I would never say that, but I don't consider him a mere tool.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

If they can't include Gordon Freeman, Master Chief should fall under the same umbrella.

Meh. Gordon Freeman doesn't even speak, like I said. If Master Chief has just a little bit of personality, Gordon doesn't have any.

Modifié par Lord_Valandil, 13 novembre 2010 - 08:47 .

[upsettingshorts]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...
Half-Life came out in 1998, so it wouldn't qualify.

Is he disqualified because his character started in 1998 (despite being in several 2000-2009 games) or because of his silent nature?  I didn't read the rules or anything.

[Druss99]

While I maintain my stance that it should have been Cortana and not the Chief on the list I think his lack of character is actually what makes him a good character.

He doesn't need much character he is a genetically enhanced super soldier who trained his entire life to be the best. Ofcourse he doesn't have wisecracks or much to say, he isn't some every man lost in a situation out of his control or a regular soldier up against impossible odds fighting to save his loved ones. He is a killing machine out to get the job done because thats simply what he does. Not having much character is actually perfect for his character. As a face for the game and for the Xbox he is perfect.

I agree though that the list is badly defined and allover the place. It still should have been Cortana on it either way.

Also for the couple of people who mentioned Gordon Freeman he isn't he from the 90's? I think thats why Alex is in there instead.

Edit I was ninja'd by Onlyshallow on the Freeman point.

Modifié par Druss99, 13 novembre 2010 - 08:55 .

[Saibh]

Lord_Valandil wrote...
Fair enough.
But his personality (and character) is explored in the books and comics. I know, I know, the books and comics aren't games, but they are a part of the game universe, the same way The Stolen Throne and The Calling work for Dragon Age.

There's really no indication that GI read the Dragon Age novels--they only cite the game itself. And, before I read the novels (which did wonders to flesh him out), I still thought he was one of gaming's best villains ever. I don't think that books or comics should count for this list.

He's a silent character (mostly), but also shows moments of fear/weakness, determination to fulfill the missions and even a sense of humor. I'm not saying that he's the best written character ever, and I would never say that, but I don't consider him a mere tool.

Yes, but do those qualities make for a moving, fully-realized character? If his personality was in an entirely different game, would you still think he's worthy of this list? This is about characters, not the games they are in.

I'd say when the lead writer says things along the line of 'the writers don't have to define his character' 'he can be anyone because he has so little personality' that pretty much tells you he is a tool for you to use. He is an archetype, not a person.

Modifié par Saibh, 13 novembre 2010 - 09:18 .

[Lord_Valandil]

Saibh wrote...

There's really no indication that GI read
the Dragon Age novels--they only cite the game itself. And, before I
read the novels (which did wonders to flesh him out), I still thought he
was one of gaming's best villains ever. I don't think that books or
comics should count for this list.

True.
When I played Origins, I was truly shocked by Loghain's actions, and I still consider him as a great villain.
But I don't agree with the last part, however, the expanded universe is part of the canon.

Saibh wrote...

Yes, but do those qualities make for a moving, fully-realized
character? If his personality was in an entirely different game, would
you still think he's worthy of this list? This is about characters, not
the games they are in.

I'd say when the lead writer says things
along the line of 'the writers don't have to define his character' 'he
can be anyone because he has so little personality' that pretty much
tells you he is a tool for you to use. He is an archetype, not a person.

Yes.
He's a super soldier, a calculating and efficient man. Not a talkative-type, but not a cold character either.
I mean, I never expected him to give a moving speech at some point in the game, or something like that. He has a mission, and he deals with it. Period.
He's almost a machine, I could say. We should be grateful that he's not a one-liner macho soldier cliche a la Duke Nukem.
I don't think that his creators are saying that he lacks a personality. I think they are talking about immersion. You are the Chief. You can feel what he feels. Not an empty suit that you can fill with a personality.

[Leinadi]

How can I take a list seriously when they imply that Hollywood has deep and complex stories? Neither most games or most hollywood movies have anything deep or complex in them.



The desire to tell a story to the player (which is going about it backwards if you ask me anyway) has certainly increased but most of it is generic drivel. As long as the gaming industry considers something like say, Heavy Rain, a storytelling masterpiece then we have a long way to go.

[Saibh]

Lord_Valandil wrote...

Yes.
He's a super soldier, a calculating and efficient man. Not a talkative-type, but not a cold character either.
I mean, I never expected him to give a moving speech at some point in the game, or something like that. He has a mission, and he deals with it. Period.
He's almost a machine, I could say. We should be grateful that he's not a one-liner macho soldier cliche a la Duke Nukem.
I don't think that his creators are saying that he lacks a personality. I think they are talking about immersion. You are the Chief. You can feel what he feels. Not an empty suit that you can fill with a personality.

But is that suitable for this list? He has next to no personality. How does he rate up there with Loghain or John Marston or Alyx Vance or Nathan Drake? Saying you can shoehorn any personality in there and that makes him a viable is silly. If Mario was made this decade, should he be on the list? 

His inclusion seems to be more about the game, not the character. Because he has no character, by the lead writer's own admission. As I said, he's an archetype, not a personality. He's just an archetype from one of the most popular series ever.

[Lord_Valandil]

Saibh wrote...
If Mario was made this decade, should he be on the list?

Come on now. Comparing him to Mario is going too far.
And I really like Mario, but it's certainly not the same situation. Not at all.

[Saibh]

Lord_Valandil wrote...

Saibh wrote...
If Mario was made this decade, should he be on the list?

Come on now. Comparing him to Mario is going too far.
And I really like Mario, but it's certainly not the same situation. Not at all.

I think it's an accurate comparison. Ignoring the cartoonishness of Mario games, both have very few personality traits and are from very influential and popular series. Halo benefits from having a better storyline, but how does that make him a better character? 

As a character, Master Chief is not worthy of a number four spot--especially over some of the other contenders. His series may be influential, but his "personality" is just a broad archetype that has existed already for many, many years. He is not an individual with a unique or interesting personality.

[Lord_Valandil]

Saibh wrote...

I think it's an accurate comparison. Ignoring the cartoonishness of Mario games, both have very few personality traits and are from very influential and popular series. Halo benefits from having a better storyline, but how does that make him a better character? 

As a character, Master Chief is not worthy of a number four spot--especially over some of the other contenders. His series may be influential, but his "personality" is just a broad archetype that has existed already for many, many years. He is not an individual with a unique or interesting personality.

Ah, Saibh. I adore our conversations XD and I mean it.
So, what spot does he deserves? I think he's good at number four. Especially considering he's above Niko, Alyx, Kratos...and so on. I'd put Loghain in a higher spot, however, same with The Illusive Man.
But hey. We didn't make that list. And as far as I can see, our lists would be very, very different.

I think MC is unique. I mean, you don't control him in ODST and Reach, and you really feel he isn't there.
I insist, he has a personality. I don't know what would you add in order to make him a "better" character. More dialogue? Scenes without the helmet? A speech? Crying? A romantic sub-plot? What?

Modifié par Lord_Valandil, 13 novembre 2010 - 11:39 .

[Apollo Starflare]

Saibh wrote...

Lord_Valandil wrote...

Saibh wrote...
If Mario was made this decade, should he be on the list?

Come on now. Comparing him to Mario is going too far.
And I really like Mario, but it's certainly not the same situation. Not at all.

I think it's an accurate comparison. Ignoring the cartoonishness of Mario games, both have very few personality traits and are from very influential and popular series. Halo benefits from having a better storyline, but how does that make him a better character? 

As a character, Master Chief is not worthy of a number four spot--especially over some of the other contenders. His series may be influential, but his "personality" is just a broad archetype that has existed already for many, many years. He is not an individual with a unique or interesting personality.

Going purely by games I'd say even Mario has more personality than Master Chief. Wahoo!