201 réponses à ce sujet

[nightscrawl]

txgoldrush wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

nightscrawl wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

I've never played Stolen Memory and don't know much about it beyond the fact it involves Kasumi and a heist. If there are similarities between it and MotA, I'm not certain why I or anyone else should care so long as the tales are enjoyable.

To be honest, I think many people forget that not everyone has played both Mass Effect series and Dragon Age. Sure, I can understand that on these forums full of Bioware fans that many people do play and enjoy both series, but many posts I've seen on these boards just seem to make that assumption.

I don't care one whit that MotA plot is somewhat similar to an ME DLC. I don't play ME, I don't have a very large interest in space games overall.

We don't forget it, we just think the opinion of people who didn't play ME1/2 doesn't count. Just kidding. Or not. Maybe.

Just because someone didn't play it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I dislike nesting this many, but it's necessary to not lose the context on a post that is a few days old.

Of course I understand that it exists, that the material is out there, and creative effort was put into it from people who work at the same company. My point is that you are acting as if it affects all Dragon Age players that something from a Mass Effect DLC is similar in a Dragon Age DLC. But it's not true for those of us who have not played ME.

To be honest, I'm not sure I would care even if I did play ME. One of the reasons I bought all of the story DLC for DAO, why I bought DA2 and that story DLC, and why I bought the novels is because I enjoy the world and lore that Bioware has created for us. I find it to be an interesting and compelling universe, and I am interested in the future of Thedas. Ultimately for me, it doesn't matter if the next game has Hawke or my Warden as long as I get to see what happens next in the overall story they are telling.

As for individual story units (ie games), there are very few unique ideas anymore. A lot of current work is a rehash of older ideas, or uses the same basic concepts. And we have no further to look for a dearth of creativity than Hollywoodland and the myriad of sequels to show us this. Many new media that comes along, whether it be television, movies, or games, use similar character archetypes. I really have no problem with that. One of the reasons they use those archetypes is to move the plot along in a certain way.

One common archetype (and my favorite) is the person who is a noob in whatever field of knowledge happens to be important: science, law, medicine, alien customs, etc. They put that person in there to ask the ignorant questions on behalf of the audience, who then gets the information through expository dialogue. Involved novel series that do not have such archetypes like Lord of the Rings and Dune have successive books detailing additional lore, as well as appendices in the back of the main novel because there is so much information that to have that character would be tedious. I suppose the ultimate example of this archetype is Harry Potter, the character not the series itself. He starts off as a total noob in the wizard world and every single thing is new to him and has to be explained by people. The reader gets the information along with Harry. In succeeding books, it's taken for granted that you already know some of these things and then new material is presented.

lobi wrote...

It's because the Ancient Greeks had all the good story ideas first. Then The Romans stole them and the rest is history.

I saw this awesome cave drawing once. There was a great twist at the end, but I won't spoil it for you.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 29 octobre 2011 - 09:59 .

[DRTJR]

I will say this, I thought ME2 was Eh and I didn't play ME 1, Not a really big Sci-fi guy. My love goes to Heroic fantasy, and Dragon age Origins and 2 are that to a T. I never played the DLC that MotA is supposed to be similar to but I loved how Merrill and Fenris bounced off of Talis and each other, Carver's reactions, the over all feel, and the Twist was unexpected, plus appreciated. MotA is a tale that deserved to be told, regardless if it was first told IN SPAAAACE!

[txgoldrush]

AmstradHero wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
Both Jack and Fenris are psychotic murderous characters who have extreme hatred for those that abused them and made them the way they are. Jack - Cerberus and Fenris - magisters. While they have their differences, this similiarity is striking. ... Sebastian and Leliana were both religious characters with dark amoral pasts.

A) Again, you're saying ONE ASPECT of the character is similar. I don't disagree. Where you're wrong is that reusing one aspect of a character does not constitute "recycling the character". Your claim that the characters are the same is ridiculous and inaccurate, end of story.

txgoldrush wrote...
They are all the SAME ROLE. Yes, some details from each character are different but the ROLE THEY PLAY ARE THE SAME!!!!! Its the same role where this character will try to lead the character toward a "light" or "good" side from early on. Thats recycling the same archtype over and over. Carth will chide the player for going dark side. Sky hates Closed Fist actions and will attack the player in the end for poisoning the water dragon, if not in romance. Kaiden suggests paragon routes in his dialogues. Alistair approves of most good and moral actions. Jacob approves of less ruthless means and provides some conscience to some memebers of Cereberus.

Your argument has changed here once again. Now you're claiming "they fit the same role" as opposed to "they're recycled characters.  Having a "good" moral compass does not make a recycled character. Any accusation that it does is ridiculous.

txgoldrush wrote...
C) Fenris is by far the biggest jerkass of the cast and quite cruel to mage members of the cast. And he even snaps at Hawke even a friendly one. He would definitely fit the archtype if he was female.

C) Get to know him. Rivalmance him. He's a jackass, but a jackass with reasons, and he's most certainly not the same character as Viconia, Morrigan, Jack, etc, just as they are not the same character. Sharing one characteristic (an antagonist viewpoint towards the protagonist) does not dictate a recycled character. If you knew anything about writing, you would know that conflict is an essential part of plot and character development. Having an NPC with an antagonistic relationship towards the PC is one way of exploring this.

txgoldrush wrote...
D) The entire heist storyline WAS reused nearly wholesale. It involved being enlisted by a female rogue like character to infilitrate a party, find a way inside the point of interest at the party, being caught by the host because he notices something fishy about the female lead character and knows who they are anyway. and then breaks out and kills said host. The ONLY difference was that MotA had a wyvern hunt to get in and Tallis was far more dishonest that Kasumi was (however both Kasumi's greybox and the list of Qunari would be very dangerous in the wrong hands so here is another similiarity). There are way too many points of similarities and its past superficial. Also, the point of the story is the same, stop bad guys from getting hands on dangerous info.

D) So they're exactly the same apart from a slew of differences in characters, settings, reactions, gameplay... yeah, I can see the recycling now. *sigh* It's recycled because they were both heists. Oh, the inglorious repetition! (Just in case you don't pick up on it, I was being sarcastic there)

txgoldrush wrote...
There is NOTHING superficial about comapring the ROLE the characters play. in fact, you comparison with Fenris and Geralt is laughable because Geralts ROLE was to slay monsters, both human and beastial. Fenris's role isn't, his role is to bring an extreme emotion against a plot element, which is the same as Jacks. The fact of the matter is that Carth, Alistair, Kaiden, Jacob, and Sky play the same ROLE despite some differences in character. That is still recycling.

E) Obviously you don't understand the concept of exaggeration in order to make a point. You claimed the characters were recycled and make superficial comparisons. I did the same in order to point out the specious nature of your argument.

txgoldrush wrote...
Once again, recycled from THEIR OWN WORK, not from OTHERS. Yes, Wild Flower may be inspired by Japanese works and influences however is she similiar TO OTHER BIOWARE CHARACTERS? No.

Right, so you're going to get all up in arms because of perceived (and inaccurate) claims about wholesale recycling of characters from their own work, but it's okay if they grab from elsewhere. I can vaguely understand where you're coming from on this point, but it's undermined by the fact that the remainder of your arguments here are just inconsistent and riddled with generalisations to the point that they are inaccurate.

F) I have an exercise for you. Go read "The Writer's Journey" by Christopher Vogler. Now fit all characters in all games into one of those roles. If you do this, you will discover something: If you have a pre-defined set of character generic archetypes and wish to fit everyone in a story into one of those archetypes, you can and will do it.  This does not mean that those characters are all the same, or that they are recycled.

As was stated so simply before: If you generalise enough, everything is recycled. This is as true for BioWare's own work as it is for anyone in the creative arts. You've seemingly got an axe to grind about perceived similarities in BioWare's work and are willing to grossly generalise characters and plots to make this argument, despite that the fact that you're simplified them so much that the comparisons are utterly superficial.

Your blatant inability to understand this, or your denial in accepting it either tells me that you simply can't comprehend the structure and composition of stories and characters, or you're trolling. Either way, it's becoming increasingly apparent that no profound insights into the field of game design and writing shall be gleaned from this discussion with you. Should you choose to engage in some credible debate, I'll be happy to respond.

As a final tip, just coming back and quoting "but Hellforge had their BioWare cliche chart" and "there was that cracked BioWare characters article" are not valid arguments. While amusing and interesting, they're comparisons taken at a general level one specific elements. Yes, some of those elements are reused, but often only partially, and that's nothing on which a solid argument can be based claiming that BioWare "recycle all their plots and characters".

A) However, when they play the SAME ROLE, it does constitute recycling. Jack and Fenris both play the same role, to bring about extreme hatred for a plot element.

And once again, recycling the role is basically recycling the character as the role the character plays is the MOST IMPORTANT aspect about him or her. Carth, Alistair, Sky, Kaiden, and Jacob all play the good lead role, the character that for th emost part wants things done humanely and professional.

C) And then again, Fenris has nearly the exact same role as Jack. Jack is to Cerebrus as Fenris is to magisters. In both cases, they were done wrong by these elements, and in both cases, they escaped from these elements, and in both cases, they are the point of contention with the protagonist and in both cases, they revisit them and tie the loose ends. The roles are far too similiar here.

D) And you missed the point where not only were they both hiests, they were both the same story as well with the same goal, prevent dangerous info from falling into the wrong hands. In fact, you can take different settings and gameplay and recycle the plots and bioware has done this. The Final Fantasy team is especially great at doing this. Notice how every FF game has different casts and different settings, but they all are basically save the world from the nihilist plots using two different hero archtypes, either the gruffed distant knight/merc or the happy go lucky free spirited young hero. Hell, Square even called Lightning a "female Cloud", basically admitting they are recycling. And now it seems that the FFXIII-2 writers are going to recycle Chrono Trigger....gone are they days of FFVI and FF Tactics where they brought something fresh to the table.

E) And how did I exaggerate when I not only compared similiar character traits, but the ROLES they played in the game.

F) And once again, no matter how much the fandom denies this, Bioware DOES have a reputation of recycling their plots and characters. It is because they use characters in the same roles, with many of the same or similiar traits, and have very similiar aspects.

You keep trying to ay I am overgeneralizing, but I cannot overgeneralize the roles the characters play.

Here is an example of an overgeneralizing, calling KOTOR I's Carth and KOTOR II's Atton as recycled because they are both male soliders who are the first male party memebrs. However, the roles they play are ENTIRELY different. Carth is the typical good character that tries to lead the player on the good path, Atton on the other hand is a shady character with a dark past and favors grey or even dark actions to get the job done. basically a former Jedi hunter.

However, Carth an dsay Alistair are FAR to similiar in their roles, and really, its the roles they play that invite the most criticism about recycling.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 31 octobre 2011 - 07:10 .

[txgoldrush]

nightscrawl wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

nightscrawl wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

I've never played Stolen Memory and don't know much about it beyond the fact it involves Kasumi and a heist. If there are similarities between it and MotA, I'm not certain why I or anyone else should care so long as the tales are enjoyable.

To be honest, I think many people forget that not everyone has played both Mass Effect series and Dragon Age. Sure, I can understand that on these forums full of Bioware fans that many people do play and enjoy both series, but many posts I've seen on these boards just seem to make that assumption.

I don't care one whit that MotA plot is somewhat similar to an ME DLC. I don't play ME, I don't have a very large interest in space games overall.

We don't forget it, we just think the opinion of people who didn't play ME1/2 doesn't count. Just kidding. Or not. Maybe.

Just because someone didn't play it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I dislike nesting this many, but it's necessary to not lose the context on a post that is a few days old.

Of course I understand that it exists, that the material is out there, and creative effort was put into it from people who work at the same company. My point is that you are acting as if it affects all Dragon Age players that something from a Mass Effect DLC is similar in a Dragon Age DLC. But it's not true for those of us who have not played ME.

To be honest, I'm not sure I would care even if I did play ME. One of the reasons I bought all of the story DLC for DAO, why I bought DA2 and that story DLC, and why I bought the novels is because I enjoy the world and lore that Bioware has created for us. I find it to be an interesting and compelling universe, and I am interested in the future of Thedas. Ultimately for me, it doesn't matter if the next game has Hawke or my Warden as long as I get to see what happens next in the overall story they are telling.

As for individual story units (ie games), there are very few unique ideas anymore. A lot of current work is a rehash of older ideas, or uses the same basic concepts. And we have no further to look for a dearth of creativity than Hollywoodland and the myriad of sequels to show us this. Many new media that comes along, whether it be television, movies, or games, use similar character archetypes. I really have no problem with that. One of the reasons they use those archetypes is to move the plot along in a certain way.

One common archetype (and my favorite) is the person who is a noob in whatever field of knowledge happens to be important: science, law, medicine, alien customs, etc. They put that person in there to ask the ignorant questions on behalf of the audience, who then gets the information through expository dialogue. Involved novel series that do not have such archetypes like Lord of the Rings and Dune have successive books detailing additional lore, as well as appendices in the back of the main novel because there is so much information that to have that character would be tedious. I suppose the ultimate example of this archetype is Harry Potter, the character not the series itself. He starts off as a total noob in the wizard world and every single thing is new to him and has to be explained by people. The reader gets the information along with Harry. In succeeding books, it's taken for granted that you already know some of these things and then new material is presented.

lobi wrote...

It's because the Ancient Greeks had all the good story ideas first. Then The Romans stole them and the rest is history.

I saw this awesome cave drawing once. There was a great twist at the end, but I won't spoil it for you.

But then again, you missed the point entirely.

Its not really about the players, its about the repuattion of a company or a writer or an artist. Sure, a work can seem fresh and new for one who picked up any of the artists or author's works for the first time, however, for those who see the artists or author's work as a whole, if the author does the same thing over and over again, he faces criticism.

And once again, I am not even criticizing Bioware for ripping off other peoples works (hell, they do it all the time and even shout out their influences in their games), its recycling their own stories. I have special criticism for DAO however in the fact that even with all the cliches and the obvious recycling of other fantasy works, it never establishes an identity that seperates the work or establish a unique aspect to it. This is in contrast with games like Jade Empire and Mass Effect that do.

[AmstradHero]

txgoldrush wrote...
the role the character plays is the MOST IMPORTANT aspect about him or
her. Carth, Alistair, Sky, Kaiden, and Jacob all play the good lead role. ... when they play the SAME ROLE, it does constitute recycling. Jack and Fenris both play the same role, to bring about extreme hatred for a plot element.

I'm going to put this plainly because you don't seem to understand: Role is not character.

A role does not define someone's character, unless you are looking at a character at the shallowest possible level, or at very one dimensional characters. The "mentor" role can be fulfilled by thousands of different characters, as can the "ally", "shadow" and the other "classic" archetypes. Just because some fills a role in a story does not mean they are the same character. To make this claim again demonstrates a lacking of understanding of the structure and composition of stories.

Your initial claim was that "BioWare recycles plots and characters". This is patently false, as I've proven repeatedly in my arguments which you have not provided a shred of evidence to discredit.

txgoldrush wrote...
And how did I exaggerate when I not only compared similiar character traits, but the ROLES they played in the game.

Now you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Above you say that the role is what is recycled and that's what matters, but here you're claiming the character is as well. You can't claim the latter when you argued that the role was the only thing replicated.

txgoldrush wrote...
And you missed the point where not only were they both hiests, they
were both the same story as well with the same goal, prevent dangerous
info from falling into the wrong hands.

Yet again, you failed to address any of my rebuttals and once again restated your own argument. At least this time you offered the "prevent dangerous info from falling into the wrong hands". I'd still contend that the personal involvement of Kasumi is far greater than that of Tallis, not to mention the profound effect the mission has on her.  Again, at a superficial level, they have similarities. Don't dispute it, never have. Again, when you look at them at a deeper level in terms of storytelling, characterisation and structure... they're significantly different.

txgoldrush wrote...
F) And once again, no matter how much the fandom denies this, Bioware DOES have a reputation of recycling their plots and characters. It is because they use characters in the same roles, with many of the same or similiar traits, and have very similiar aspects.

Carth an dsay Alistair are FAR to similiar in their roles, and really, its the roles they play that invite the most criticism about recycling.

In terms of storytelling and characterisation, they actually have a reputation for being one of the best companies in the game industry today.  If you had simply said "BioWare frequently has a character that fills a "male good aligned lead" role, I doubt anyone would have raised an argument against you. I certainly wouldn't have. It's true. However, this does not, will not, and will never, constitute recycling a character.

Furthermore, there's a damn good reason that this role so commonly exists in their games. For one, they create roleplaying games where people get the choice to make "good" or "bad" decisions. Last time I checked, the majority of people would end up playing as a "good" character, at least on their first playthrough. As such, the game needs a "good" aligned character to fulfill the "ally" or "lover" role that will be supportive of the protagonist, and the "good aligned male lead" allows people to have someone in their party that both male and female protagonists can relate to in that fashion.

This is why you get people like the principled yet reticent Carth, the moral if ineffectual and naive Alistair and the carefree and gentle-minded Sky. They are all characters that allow people to have that support that they want when roleplaying that sort of character. This does not, and will never mean that Carth, Alistair and Sky are the same recycled character. If we're being really honest here, I'd say the "good guy" role in KotOR was actually better described as a "good girl" role in Bastila. She was a far more compelling and interesting "good aligned" character than Carth ever was. Of course, role does not constitute character - it is merely a simple base level and shallow archetype that allows them to play a certain role mechanically and stylistically within the story - it does not create the defining characteristics of their personality.

Does BioWare have roles that are filled to meet certain gameplay, narrative and party construction needs? Certainly. That's the nature of having characters with personality in a party based RPG. Is Lightning "a female Cloud"? I don't know, I haven't played it, so I can't tell. If she fills the same role, but is a completely different character with a completely different personality, then she's not a recycled character, and any arguments claiming as such are stupid. That's right, I just came out and potentially defended a Final Fantasy game, and I've never understood why people find them interesting. Role reuse is not a crime provided that the role is necessary mechanically and the characters are new, different and interesting.

Certain roles need to be filled - you need to have a "mentor" figure to explain aspects of the setting, plot and characters, just as this is needed in a movie to explain it to the protagonist. An ally is typically necessary to provide support to the hero on their journey... and so on and so forth. I'm not about to spout story theory at you all day, you can go do some research on your own. (As I suggested before)

txgoldrush wrote...
You keep trying to say I am overgeneralizing, but I cannot overgeneralize the roles the characters play.

A role is a gross generalisation by its very nature, That's why we have roles and archetypes defined in literary story analysis, to determine how they are used mechanically within the story telling process to progress the plot and character development. Defining a role and then categorising characters within writing does not lessen the impact of those stories, nor imply that all those characters are the same. It merely allows us to find a convenient label from which to analyse their contribution to a plot and further our understanding of writing structure.

BioWare do reuse certain roles (with varying degrees of latitude in the implementation) for stylistic and gameplay reasons. They don't, however, reuse characters.

Now, if you'd care to cut your teeth on talking about game design and provide some insight into the roles characters play from a storytelling and gameplay perspective, then you might actually get into some interesting discussion.

[Il Divo]

It really does seem like people aren't aware that what separates one story from another is primarily the details. If you generalize enough, all stories (and characters) have been told a million times before.

Modifié par Il Divo, 31 octobre 2011 - 02:05 .

[Gabey5]

AmstradHero wrote...

Gabey5 wrote...
you are missing the point. da2 and and me2 break the mold i have already said that.

Actually, no, that's the opposite of what you said.  Take a look:

Gabey5 wrote...
It goes far beyond style. In their most recent games you do join an elite order, your home or place you hold dear is
attacked and you get the same companions with some changed to suit the setting. They are rehasing plots but changing it to suit the envoronment, ancient evil machine race, ancient evil monsters, ancient eveil space station etc.

Whoops.

Yes Mass effect  and Dragon age origins feauture the ancient monsters and machine race.  I was not talking about DA2 or ME2

Gabey5 wrote...
i posted the character that were rehashed and cited the games they are from. Obviously they changed some things based on setting China or Tuchana but they are same on the most par

Again, no, you stated generic roles that could be applied to hundreds of characters, when in fact those characters have a great variance in their personality. Take a look:

Gabey5 wrote...
The awkward girl is majorly hot
Liara, Mission, Tali and of course they could not help themselves in DA2, merril
-she is an expert in her craft but just can't help but be so awward in social setting *swoon*

The super agressive
Wrex, Canderous, Grunt, Black Whirlwind
- a warriror culture where the strong survive blah blah

The honourable guy
Thane, Zhu, Sten
- basically lik ethe previous group but have some kind of code

Your boring right hand man
jacob, kaiden, and carver
ZzZz

Old wise
Duncan, Anderson, Bindo etc
- i am getting to old for this ../../../images/forum/emoticons/angry.png

Robot that  is baddass
-shale, legion, hk

Whoops again.

Minor differences.  Not huge variances. Ie Canderous and Wrex have the same generic role for instance. As do sten and Thane. There are minor differneces with age and such but the majority is the same

Gabey5 wrote...
when i was talking about da2 being bad i was talking your post about dismissing people who disliked da2 as a "money making" exercise. Whether or not BD2 was a money making excercise is irrelevent. DA2 was in my opinion and in many other people's as well.

It seems you didn't actually read my post at all. The "money making exercise" I was referring to was the game mechanic of being forced to raise a set amount of money within the game - something that occurs in DA2 and BG2. I was pointing out a reused story mechanic. But you then stated:

Gabey5 wrote...
DA2 goes further by reusing levels along with characters but did not reuse the story. Other games have reused the story and characters but not levels to an alarming degree

So apparently you don't even agree that a story point was reused, when it clearly was.  However, as many would be very quick to point out, DA2 is not a recycled BG2, and they would talk until they are blue in the face how they are nothing alike. To be honest, I quite like both games, and there are certainly elements which you could pick out and say they are similar, but that doesn't mean that DA2 is recycled from BG2.

i misread the money making bit


I'm afraid I'm not missing the point. The unfortunate point of fact is that you have an argument that is based on nothing but opinion, but worse still, an opinion that seems to be derived entirely from "the BioWare cliche chart" and "the BioWare character archetype list".

Having an opinion is entirely valid, but before you start espousing it as fact and declaring BioWare's vast reuse of characters and plots, you need to make sure that you can back it up. You haven't been able to, and neither has txgoldrush. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet, Learn to form your own reasoned opinions based on facts and evidence that lead to a logical conclusion. If you learn how to do that, you might just be able to construct a valid argument.

This entire board is opinion. Bioware reuses plots and characters in their games. Are there some of their games where this does not line up 100% sure but for the many of their hit games that is the case. You do not need a chart o figue that one out. I have backed up my points it is you who is not using logic.  If you have played many of their games it is plain to see the vast similarites in major plots and charcters in the game. I am not going to list every game and which characters are the same and which plots are reused in all their games.  I am not saying every character in every game or every plot is reused butfor many of their games they are. To post every instance of this would take too much time and you don't seem to want to budge from your viewpoint so i will not bother

Modifié par Gabey5, 31 octobre 2011 - 03:03 .

[Il Divo]

Gabey5 wrote...

This entire board is opinion. Bioware reuses plots and characters in their games. Are there some of their games where this does not line up 100% sure but for the many of their hit games that is the case. You do not need a chart o figue that one out. I have backed up my points it is you who is not using logic.  If you have played many of their games it is plain to see the vast similarites in major plots and charcters in the game. I am not going to list every game and which characters are the same and which plots are reused in all their games.  I am not saying every character in every game or every plot is reused butfor many of their games they are. To post every instance of this would take too much time and you don't seem to want to budge from your viewpoint so i will not bother

Clearly it is not plain to see, otherwise this wouldn't be a topic worth discussing in the first place. Considering that some of your own points relied on claiming that Shale, HK-47, and Legion were the same "type", I think that speaks volumes to the lack of logic being employed.

[AlexXIV]

Il Divo wrote...

Gabey5 wrote...

This entire board is opinion. Bioware reuses plots and characters in their games. Are there some of their games where this does not line up 100% sure but for the many of their hit games that is the case. You do not need a chart o figue that one out. I have backed up my points it is you who is not using logic.  If you have played many of their games it is plain to see the vast similarites in major plots and charcters in the game. I am not going to list every game and which characters are the same and which plots are reused in all their games.  I am not saying every character in every game or every plot is reused butfor many of their games they are. To post every instance of this would take too much time and you don't seem to want to budge from your viewpoint so i will not bother

Clearly it is not plain to see, otherwise this wouldn't be a topic worth discussing in the first place. Considering that some of your own points relied on claiming that Shale, HK-47, and Legion were the same "type", I think that speaks volumes to the lack of logic being employed.

A type doesn't really say much. If type in this example means 'anorganic' then you can as well say that all organics are also a type. I could give several examples how Legion and HK-47 are not the same type and especially Shale is even more different from the two robots. So basically it's a matter of definition. So if someone wants to define them as 'one type' I'm not surprised they will run into reused types all the time.

In terms of DA: Morrigan and Merrill are not the same type. Bethany and Leliana are not the same type. Fenris and Sten are not the same type. Anders and Alistair are not the same type. Of course you can reduce their characters to the point when they look the same. But if you have to cut something down to look the same, then they probably were not the same before.

[AmstradHero]

Gabey5 wrote...
Minor differences.  Not huge variances. Ie Canderous and Wrex have the same generic role for instance. As do sten and Thane. There are minor differneces with age and such but the majority is the same

Minor differences between Sten and Thane? Their characters are vastly different. I'd see how you could claim they're "warriors driven by a code" as a very generic archetype, but the details of their characters are nothing alike. Sten is focused on a singular goal and hates deviating from it, and will even fight the player if he believes they are not singularly concentrating on defeating the blight. Thane on the other hand doesn't know what his goal is apart from seeking some sort of redemption and absolution for a life of killing, This is not recycling a character. I really don't know how you can possibly make this argument, as it's not even remotely plausible.

Gabey5 wrote...
i misread the money making bit

Right, so if you're not bothering to read my posts properly, or read the entire thread (which you obviously haven't done because otherwise you wouldn't have tried to use the "same generic role" argument above) , how are you possibly making a considered response?

Gabey5 wrote...
Bioware reuses plots and characters in their games. Are there some of their games where this does not line up 100% sure but for the many of their hit games that is the case. You do not need a chart o figue that one out.

I have backed up my points it is you who is not using logic. If you have played many of their games it is plain to see the vast  similarites in major plots and charcters in the game. I am not going to list every game and which characters are the same and which plots are reused in all their games.

If it is so obvious, and I am not using logic, why is it that you are unable to provide evidence to support your claim? I'm not asking you to list every game in which characters are the same, and which plots are "reused in all their games". (That, by the way, is a prime example of you not saying what you meant to say - you just claimed that some plots are reused in all BioWare games, which I assume was not your intent) All I'm asking if that you provide some credible evidence. You haven't done so.

The list you presented previously of "recycled characters" can be ripped to shreds if someone dedicated even a single sentence to describe each character to demonstrate the vast differences between them. I've demonstrated here that Thane and Sten are nothing alike, and Legion is certainly nothing like HK-47 except that they're both "robots". So far you haven't even provided a single example of a recycled character to support your argument.

If you're undertaking a superficial level of analysis (e.g. they're both robots, hence recycled character), then yes, you're going to believe that all those characters are recycled. That does not mean that these characters are the same, and indeed the details of those characters are vastly different if you bother to examine them. If you look at characters at such a high level, then that's obviously the gaming style that makes you happy, but to claim that the characters are recycled without looking any deeper is absurd and utterly inaccurate.

Gabey5 wrote...
To post every instance of this would take too much time and you don't seem to want to budge from your viewpoint so i will not bother

I'm willing to disuss and I'll certainly reconsider my position if you provide evidence. You haven't. I'm the one doing all the work here disproving arguments that don't hold up to basic scrutiny. Read the other posts in this thread and consider your argument. I'll be here if you decide you can actually back up your claims.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 01 novembre 2011 - 12:42 .

[txgoldrush]

AmstradHero wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
the role the character plays is the MOST IMPORTANT aspect about him or
her. Carth, Alistair, Sky, Kaiden, and Jacob all play the good lead role. ... when they play the SAME ROLE, it does constitute recycling. Jack and Fenris both play the same role, to bring about extreme hatred for a plot element.

A) I'm going to put this plainly because you don't seem to understand: Role is not character.

A role does not define someone's character, unless you are looking at a character at the shallowest possible level, or at very one dimensional characters. The "mentor" role can be fulfilled by thousands of different characters, as can the "ally", "shadow" and the other "classic" archetypes. Just because some fills a role in a story does not mean they are the same character. To make this claim again demonstrates a lacking of understanding of the structure and composition of stories.

Your initial claim was that "BioWare recycles plots and characters". This is patently false, as I've proven repeatedly in my arguments which you have not provided a shred of evidence to discredit.

txgoldrush wrote...
And how did I exaggerate when I not only compared similiar character traits, but the ROLES they played in the game.

Now you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Above you say that the role is what is recycled and that's what matters, but here you're claiming the character is as well. You can't claim the latter when you argued that the role was the only thing replicated.

txgoldrush wrote...
And you missed the point where not only were they both hiests, they
were both the same story as well with the same goal, prevent dangerous
info from falling into the wrong hands.

C) Yet again, you failed to address any of my rebuttals and once again restated your own argument. At least this time you offered the "prevent dangerous info from falling into the wrong hands". I'd still contend that the personal involvement of Kasumi is far greater than that of Tallis, not to mention the profound effect the mission has on her.  Again, at a superficial level, they have similarities. Don't dispute it, never have. Again, when you look at them at a deeper level in terms of storytelling, characterisation and structure... they're significantly different.

txgoldrush wrote...
F) And once again, no matter how much the fandom denies this, Bioware DOES have a reputation of recycling their plots and characters. It is because they use characters in the same roles, with many of the same or similiar traits, and have very similiar aspects.

Carth an dsay Alistair are FAR to similiar in their roles, and really, its the roles they play that invite the most criticism about recycling.

D) In terms of storytelling and characterisation, they actually have a reputation for being one of the best companies in the game industry today.  If you had simply said "BioWare frequently has a character that fills a "male good aligned lead" role, I doubt anyone would have raised an argument against you. I certainly wouldn't have. It's true. However, this does not, will not, and will never, constitute recycling a character.

E) Furthermore, there's a damn good reason that this role so commonly exists in their games. For one, they create roleplaying games where people get the choice to make "good" or "bad" decisions. Last time I checked, the majority of people would end up playing as a "good" character, at least on their first playthrough. As such, the game needs a "good" aligned character to fulfill the "ally" or "lover" role that will be supportive of the protagonist, and the "good aligned male lead" allows people to have someone in their party that both male and female protagonists can relate to in that fashion.

F) This is why you get people like the principled yet reticent Carth, the moral if ineffectual and naive Alistair and the carefree and gentle-minded Sky. They are all characters that allow people to have that support that they want when roleplaying that sort of character. This does not, and will never mean that Carth, Alistair and Sky are the same recycled character. If we're being really honest here, I'd say the "good guy" role in KotOR was actually better described as a "good girl" role in Bastila. She was a far more compelling and interesting "good aligned" character than Carth ever was. Of course, role does not constitute character - it is merely a simple base level and shallow archetype that allows them to play a certain role mechanically and stylistically within the story - it does not create the defining characteristics of their personality.

G) Does BioWare have roles that are filled to meet certain gameplay, narrative and party construction needs? Certainly. That's the nature of having characters with personality in a party based RPG. Is Lightning "a female Cloud"? I don't know, I haven't played it, so I can't tell. If she fills the same role, but is a completely different character with a completely different personality, then she's not a recycled character, and any arguments claiming as such are stupid. That's right, I just came out and potentially defended a Final Fantasy game, and I've never understood why people find them interesting. Role reuse is not a crime provided that the role is necessary mechanically and the characters are new, different and interesting.

H) Certain roles need to be filled - you need to have a "mentor" figure to explain aspects of the setting, plot and characters, just as this is needed in a movie to explain it to the protagonist. An ally is typically necessary to provide support to the hero on their journey... and so on and so forth. I'm not about to spout story theory at you all day, you can go do some research on your own. (As I suggested before)

txgoldrush wrote...
You keep trying to say I am overgeneralizing, but I cannot overgeneralize the roles the characters play.

A role is a gross generalisation by its very nature, That's why we have roles and archetypes defined in literary story analysis, to determine how they are used mechanically within the story telling process to progress the plot and character development. Defining a role and then categorising characters within writing does not lessen the impact of those stories, nor imply that all those characters are the same. It merely allows us to find a convenient label from which to analyse their contribution to a plot and further our understanding of writing structure.

BioWare do reuse certain roles (with varying degrees of latitude in the implementation) for stylistic and gameplay reasons. They don't, however, reuse characters.

Now, if you'd care to cut your teeth on talking about game design and provide some insight into the roles characters play from a storytelling and gameplay perspective, then you might actually get into some interesting discussion.

A) A role doesn't define someones character? LOL

Hell, if you take a nice, good aligned character....if he were to play an antagonist role, theat character would be viewed in a far different light than a protagonist character. Role defines a character far more than his traits. His traits just flesh out the role he plays. What the character does is just as or even more important than who he is.

And it is you that is oversimplifying, notice that I used more specific, more pinpoint, and more defined role defintions like "male LEAD character that tries to lead the player to be good". Or "spiritual or religious good aligned lady who tries to lead the player to good" or the "comedic assassin who provides dark humor". These roles are far more defined and recycling these roles are far more noticable than broad ones.

The role of the character as well as some of the hcracters sharing very similiar traits as well contribute to recycling. Recycled characters do not have to be exacty the same, just imilir enough.

C) Not significantly different enough and the main point of the plot is the same....if the greybox info falls into the wrong hands the alliance suffers and if the scroll falls into the wrong hands the Qunari suffers so they must be stopped. Really, the ONLY differences are the extra steps to getting in the party and that Tallis is far less truthful than Kasumi was so you can continue without her (for a while). Other than that, its a name replacing excercise to compare the simlairities. Its far from superficial when the plot goals are the same. Face this fact.

D) They also have a reputation among many gamers of recycling their plots and characters as well. In fact, they are many times called "overrated" because of theat fact. Also Obsidian and Chris Avellone also have a repuataion of great storytelling and characterization, however, they DON'T have a repuatation of recycling characters and plot elements (but they do have a knock on them for not making new IPs with the exception of the awful Alpha Protocol, and just do other peoples IPs).

E) And then again...the whole "good" and "evil" mechanic is stupid and outdated and now highly criticized. There is a reason why most franchises and game companies went away from the morality meter and feature more morally ambigious decisions and characters. A game does not have to have a "good" character. Even game series that do have morality meters have a huge sense of grey to them, Fable III and Fallout New Vegas for instance. In fact, Jade Empire is brought down a huge bit by its morality system. The whole Closed Fist/Open Palm concept is supposed to be grey, but the implementation was way black and white, with the Closed Fist game being far more evil than the Dark Side of KOTOR. And in Mass Effect, the system is done much better, but then again Paragon Shep is mostly nice and Renegade Shepard is mostly a jerk. I give props to Bioware getting complete rid of a good and evil system in DAII, which is by FAR there most morally ambigious game.

F) But then here we go again.....yes, Bastila is more "good" than Carth, however, Dawn Star is more "good" than Sky, and Leliana is more "good" than Alistair. And then what do this girls have in common, the spiritual nature of them. Ashley of ME1 is a subversion where she is spiritual but favors many renegade actions as well. She is actually a break from the recycling of past Bioware characters. Once again, just like those male leads, Bastila (until the end), Leliana, and Dawn Star have the smae roles with very similiar major characteristics.

G) The only real differenceis that Lightning is less of a protagonist than Cloud was even though her role remained the same. She also for the most part has very similiar characteristics and mannerisms to Cloud....very cold ex- merc that opens up as the game goes along. And FFVIII Squall is an even bigger case of the recycling of Cloud. Snow is just basically the Locke role recycled as he is a leader of a resistance group or a major player of one, who wants to be a hero and save others, and wants to revive his lost loved one.

In fact really FFVII is basically FFVI in cyberpunk. They recycled the same plot elements.

H) And certain "roles" can be subverted...oh how Master Li subverts the "mentor" role. Not every story has to have a certain specific role (I mean specific, not broad) recycled over and over. For example KOTOR II did not need a good male lead or a good female lead, as both leads were neutral. And then again Kreia subverts cliche and even Star Wars mythos by being a completely neutral Sith/Jedi who vouches for nuetral actions. Also, she becomes the antagonist while still having neutral beliefs and goals. She has to be stopped by good characters because of the unforseen consquences her actions may have (and evil characters to tkae her power). And really the entire cast is neutral outside the more evil Hanharr. Another aspect of KOTOR II, which doesn't always work, the hero influences the characters far more than they try to influence him. More reason to have far more neutral cliche breaking characters.

Outside of several characters (Ashley, Wild Flower, Mordin, Tali for example) and most of the DAII cast, Bioware doesn't bring very many "new" roles or subverted roles, they keep rehashing the same ones over and over. And add the fact they these characters have too many similiarities to one another which makes the recycling far more obvious.

When push comes to shove, it doesn't matter the differences, when the character has a very similiar or the same role and if the character has very similiar traits to another in the past, or in regards to the plot elements...if they have the same point, theme, or goal and are very similiar to another used in the past.......the plot or characters WILL get criticized for it. You cannot deny this. Its more than just superficial at this point.

And until Mark of the Assassin, I had a lot of faith that Bioware would stop recycling the same formula, the same characters, and many times, the same plots.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 01 novembre 2011 - 09:42 .

[txgoldrush]

I just love this graphic, it is so true and it pisses FFVII fans off......and I can do the same for Kasumi Stolen Memory and Mask of the Assassin...this is what happens when story elements are TOO similiar.



And this graphic is being TOO leinant....they forgot the fact that Terra...ummm...I mean Cloud becomes comatose and the party has to restore his, I mean her memories to revive her, I mean him. Cloud also has heavily elements of Celes's character (who I find FFVI's true pritagonist in the second half) and her journey as a character who was a former solider of the bad guys who at first is cold, damaged, and introverted, but becomes more open and heroic as the game goes along. Also, Safer Sephiroth's boss fight is almost completely recycled from Kefka's final form. He has got some of the exact same attacks too.

FFVII, greatest RPG ever? Nope, more like most overrated RPG ever. And really, FFVI is the much more influential FF game ever from a storytelling point of view.

And then the recycling doesn't end here, a poster comparing VII to IX.

"lol @ the VI-VII plot being the same. So true. I think VII and IX can be compared too. The game begins with a cocky hero Cloud/Zidane who teams up with a group of rouges called Avalanche/Tantalus who are out to defeat the evil Shinra/Queen. However later on it is revealed that the true evil is not the Shinra/Queen but on the mysterious white-haired Sephiroth/Kuja who is the real bad guy. Then again it's revealed that both Cloud&Sephiroth/Zidane&Kuja are connected due to being experimented on/created by Hojo/Garland."

Hell, I found IX to be very similiar to VI in main narrative theme and villian (until the end).

Really fans, do you want Bioware doing this? Or do you want them branching out and try to at least tell very different tales with very different character archtypes? I stopped being a fan of the FF series because it has become more and more creatively bankrupt. I do not want to do the same for Bioware games.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 01 novembre 2011 - 05:53 .

[AmstradHero]

I'm not even going to bother quoting that wall of text, because most of if isn't relevant to the discussion at hand. In essence, you're arguing that role is the defining characteristic of a character. Once again, I must repeat that according to commonly accepted storytelling structure and composition, it's not. "LOL" all you want, but read books about writing, and you'll see this is true. Role is the mechanical function of a character within a story. You can repeat that "Alistair is the same as Carth who is the same as Sky" (which has been a core part of your argument already, so why change now?), but no matter how many times you say it, that won't make it true.  They are male, good aligned allies (saying "lead" isn't accurate, because the PLAYER is the lead, the player is ALWAYS the lead, and if they're not then the writers need to go back to the drawing board until they are). That's it. That's where the similarity starts and where it ends.  It exists for a reason, and I've stated why. I don't even see the point in continuing this line of discussion because it's going to go around in circles.

As far as you seem to be concerned, as long as their one aspect of a character that is recycled (which you deem to be "mechanical role" they play within the story) then the character is recycled.  I wholeheartedly disagree because storytelling principles dictate that character is defined by personality, traits and reactions to situations. If placed in the same situation, Alistair, Carth and Sky might perform an action that resulted in similar outcomes (but there would be plenty of cases whether they wouldn't), but in each case the reason why they would undertake a particular action (and they'd likely be different actions) would be vastly different.

Let's take a hypothetical of a noble who was mistreating servants and beating them.  Carth... well, he'd probably end up advocating for imprisonment of the noble, because that would be justice and would make sure that he wouldn't do it again.  Sky... I'm guessing he'd probably see the guy dead. Such mistreatment wouldn't be acceptable to him, and he'd probably consider the world to be a better place without him.  Alistair... that's a tricky one. He'd go for punishment of some sort, but he'd likely want it to be made public, demonstrating that this sort of behaviour is unacceptable.

To me, even though those three character fulfil a "good male sidekick"  role, they are very different individual characters. You couldn't just substitute one for another, because their approach to situations and even the language they use are very different. The devil is in the details, and the details are vastly different. You know the funny thing is that I even agree with you that I'd like to see more varied characters in BioWare games. I'd love to see a game where all the allies have moral flaws, but I don't buy the argument that BioWare recycles characters because the characters do not react in the same way and are not fueled by the same motivations.

As an aside, you called Alpha Protocol awful. As far as I'm concerned, you've just undermined your credibility once again, because AP had brilliant writing, excellent characters, and was almost exclusively let down by combat mechanics (and minigame controls on PC). I think a little less of anyone who calls it a bad game, because as far as I'm concerned, they were expecting "Mass Effect as a spy game" and that's most definitely not what it was. Technically it was pretty bad, but in terms of writing, characterisation, plot development matched against choice, it was top notch... but I digress.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 01 novembre 2011 - 08:19 .

[Aldandil]

I'd just like to add a short comment to this thread. You find most "roles" in any other party based RPG as well. It seems not only Bioware reuses their characters, Obsidian did so too in NWN 2. Joss Whedon has characters with the exact same functions in Firefly. If these are examples of characters based on the "Bioware model", should Bioware claim copyright infriction? Of course not, since a good male character trying to lead the protagonist away from evil deeds can be found all over the place in gaming and in literatur, especially in fantasy and space operas where you have a group of people against the world.

Building a story around a group of basic roles has been done far longer than Bioware has been around. Anyone can feel free to think that they should build their stories differently, but you can hardly claim that they're repeating themselves when they're working within the standards of their genre.

[txgoldrush]

AmstradHero wrote...

I'm not even going to bother quoting that wall of text, because most of if isn't relevant to the discussion at hand. In essence, you're arguing that role is the defining characteristic of a character. Once again, I must repeat that according to commonly accepted storytelling structure and composition, it's not. "LOL" all you want, but read books about writing, and you'll see this is true. Role is the mechanical function of a character within a story. You can repeat that "Alistair is the same as Carth who is the same as Sky" (which has been a core part of your argument already, so why change now?), but no matter how many times you say it, that won't make it true.  They are male, good aligned allies (saying "lead" isn't accurate, because the PLAYER is the lead, the player is ALWAYS the lead, and if they're not then the writers need to go back to the drawing board until they are). That's it. That's where the similarity starts and where it ends.  It exists for a reason, and I've stated why. I don't even see the point in continuing this line of discussion because it's going to go around in circles.

As far as you seem to be concerned, as long as their one aspect of a character that is recycled (which you deem to be "mechanical role" they play within the story) then the character is recycled.  I wholeheartedly disagree because storytelling principles dictate that character is defined by personality, traits and reactions to situations. If placed in the same situation, Alistair, Carth and Sky might perform an action that resulted in similar outcomes (but there would be plenty of cases whether they wouldn't), but in each case the reason why they would undertake a particular action (and they'd likely be different actions) would be vastly different.

Let's take a hypothetical of a noble who was mistreating servants and beating them.  Carth... well, he'd probably end up advocating for imprisonment of the noble, because that would be justice and would make sure that he wouldn't do it again.  Sky... I'm guessing he'd probably see the guy dead. Such mistreatment wouldn't be acceptable to him, and he'd probably consider the world to be a better place without him.  Alistair... that's a tricky one. He'd go for punishment of some sort, but he'd likely want it to be made public, demonstrating that this sort of behaviour is unacceptable.

To me, even though those three character fulfil a "good male sidekick"  role, they are very different individual characters. You couldn't just substitute one for another, because their approach to situations and even the language they use are very different. The devil is in the details, and the details are vastly different. You know the funny thing is that I even agree with you that I'd like to see more varied characters in BioWare games. I'd love to see a game where all the allies have moral flaws, but I don't buy the argument that BioWare recycles characters because the characters do not react in the same way and are not fueled by the same motivations.

As an aside, you called Alpha Protocol awful. As far as I'm concerned, you've just undermined your credibility once again, because AP had brilliant writing, excellent characters, and was almost exclusively let down by combat mechanics (and minigame controls on PC). I think a little less of anyone who calls it a bad game, because as far as I'm concerned, they were expecting "Mass Effect as a spy game" and that's most definitely not what it was. Technically it was pretty bad, but in terms of writing, characterisation, plot development matched against choice, it was top notch... but I digress.

Alpha Protocol's story was shockingly bad in both plot and characters. Really the characters are all shockingly one dimensional, lack all sorts of character development (maybe not Scarlet), the romances are forced as all hell and lack almost any build up (especially Madison Saint James, see how the Bourne series built up Marie's character in Identity before they killed her in Supremacy, no such build up in AP for the museum sequence as her relationship build up was rushed and forced), and the bad guys are basically just like Bourne's Treadstone/Blackbriar. It was a by the numbers formulaic plotline with no social releavance what so ever and is so predictable as well with its unperdictabilty. Really all the characters feel more like caracitures and less like human beings and really IGN's review nailed it, only the character that doesn't utter a word feels human and is the most intriguing character in the game (Sis). And SIE and Heck are just garabage stereotypical cliches and highly annoying characters. I excepted much much more from the writer of Planescape Torment and Mask Of The Betrayer. The only good thing about AP are the choice system and the conversation system.

Yes, Carth, Sky, Kaiden, Allistair, and Jacob do have there differences, its just that there role is simply the same and that there is too much similairity in them anyway. In the end, THE DIFFERENCES DO NOT MATTER. Yes, Sky may handle thing somewhat diffenent in certain situations than Carth, however, he also has his own similiairties to Carth such as loss of family from the bad guys, There is a reason why there is a term coined from fans called "Carth Syndrome". The criticism is real, and none of the differences matter to dispel this criticism. Thats just what happens when you have a role used over and over in your games, with enough similairites to tie the characters together. And Carth and Kaiden even have the same voice actor.

I call them male lead party members because they are usually the deuteragonist (like Allistair), the first male party member you receive (Carth, Kaiden, Jacob), or the most predominant male character (Sky). DAII is such a breath of fresh air with a completely different male lead. The character with the Carth syndrome is the DLC character and he is not always good and can lose himself to vengence, he can subvert it.

[AmstradHero]

txgoldrush wrote...
It was a by the numbers formulaic plotline with no social releavance what so ever and is so predictable as well with its unperdictabilty. ...
Really all the characters feel more like caracitures and less like human beings and really IGN's review nailed it, ... And SIE and Heck are just garabage stereotypical cliches 

Predictable by its unpredictability? Uhhh... Right. There are few games in the past years where I haven't predicted the "twists", or have been genuinely surprised by a game's plot turns. Alpha Protocol was one of them. People are heaping praise upon Deus Ex: Human Revolution's story... I'm afraid I picked the "big twist" about 3 minutes in, and every other "major plot development" I saw coming hours and hours beforehand. Horses for courses, maybe, but AP was anything but predictable.
Also, you're quoting an IGN review as a definitive opinion? The IGN review is the epitome of reviewing a game for what the reviewer expected: Mass Effect in a spy setting. You'll also find that the IGN review actually (validly, that was one of the few things I actually agreed with) credited the setting and plot. And if you're calling Heck is a cliche, then you must be on a completely different planet. 

You're seeing recycling and cliches everywhere because you're apparently determined to prove "how intelligent you are by showing how all these characters are the same". You keep generalising and changing the goalposts of your definition until you can justify repeating your unsubstantiated arguments.

The "specific" description of: "Good male lead who tries to convince the player to do good" is no more specific or accurate than "good male lead", because all characters with an agenda in BioWare games complain when the player does something they disagree with. In many cases they can't convince the player to do something else, because the player doesn't get a chance to change their decision once the choice is made and the ally complains. As with all your "clarifications" in your argument, you're simply making the same argument in different words without any way to support it.

txgoldrush wrote...
THE DIFFERENCES DO NOT MATTER. Yes, Sky may handle thing somewhat diffenent in certain situations than Carth, however, he also has his own similiairties

You even agree that there are plenty of differences, but to you, the details don't matter. You claim that the fact that the characters would act completely differently, and have completely different motiviations are irrelevant because you can simplify their characters down to a point where you can put them in the same box. This is the point at which you claim they are recycled.  Let's look at a quote from another thread you wrote in:

txgoldrush wrote...
Zervan and HK47 are alot alike, its not even funny.

Oversimplification much?

I think I should have gone with a three word response that came to mind when I read your first post: bollocks, bollocks, bollocks. That's all the refuting your ridiculous and flimsy argument deserves. Go read books about writing, about storytelling, about narrative in any form. They'll prove how preposterous your supposition is. I know, I've done my research. You haven't.

My original point still stands: you're generalising to a point where all characters are sufficiently similar that you can claim they are recycled, and you expect to be lauded for your insight for doing so. No matter how many times we go around this roundabout, your argument won't be supported by the evidence. End of story.

Alternatively, this is one of the most successful trolls I've ever been stung by. In that case, I applaud your efforts for wasting my time. I assure you it won't happen any more.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 02 novembre 2011 - 11:51 .

[esper]

txgoldrush wrote...

I just love this graphic, it is so true and it pisses FFVII fans off......and I can do the same for Kasumi Stolen Memory and Mask of the Assassin...this is what happens when story elements are TOO similiar.



And this graphic is being TOO leinant....they forgot the fact that Terra...ummm...I mean Cloud becomes comatose and the party has to restore his, I mean her memories to revive her, I mean him. Cloud also has heavily elements of Celes's character (who I find FFVI's true pritagonist in the second half) and her journey as a character who was a former solider of the bad guys who at first is cold, damaged, and introverted, but becomes more open and heroic as the game goes along. Also, Safer Sephiroth's boss fight is almost completely recycled from Kefka's final form. He has got some of the exact same attacks too.

FFVII, greatest RPG ever? Nope, more like most overrated RPG ever. And really, FFVI is the much more influential FF game ever from a storytelling point of view.

And then the recycling doesn't end here, a poster comparing VII to IX.

"lol @ the VI-VII plot being the same. So true. I think VII and IX can be compared too. The game begins with a cocky hero Cloud/Zidane who teams up with a group of rouges called Avalanche/Tantalus who are out to defeat the evil Shinra/Queen. However later on it is revealed that the true evil is not the Shinra/Queen but on the mysterious white-haired Sephiroth/Kuja who is the real bad guy. Then again it's revealed that both Cloud&Sephiroth/Zidane&Kuja are connected due to being experimented on/created by Hojo/Garland."

Hell, I found IX to be very similiar to VI in main narrative theme and villian (until the end).

Really fans, do you want Bioware doing this? Or do you want them branching out and try to at least tell very different tales with very different character archtypes? I stopped being a fan of the FF series because it has become more and more creatively bankrupt. I do not want to do the same for Bioware games.

It is true that final fantasy have something for the evil empire vs. a small group of heroes + later plot twist since final fantasy VI . (I never played VII and VIII, but it seems to be the same). However the different branches and themes and characters in the good stories justifies this untill XII which in my opinion didn't deliver in character or world depth, there was no plot twist and Larza's big brother was the villian from start to end.  

I liked that bioware went away from their normal formula in dragon age 2, don't get me wrong, but you can't say that Sebastian/Alistar/Jacob/Sky is the same person because they are good alligened and has lost someone close to them that is too broad a brush.

I study litterature and came across a saying somewhere saying that there are only seven different stories in the world and of course that comes with there are only are different number of archetypes and characters in the world. If you generlize too much everyone will be the same.

[Il Divo]

esper wrote...

I study litterature and came across a saying somewhere saying that there are only seven different stories in the world and of course that comes with there are only are different number of archetypes and characters in the world. If you generlize too much everyone will be the same.

I don't remember the number, but I do recall hearing this as well. Do you know off-hand what those seven stories are? The only one I know of is the monomyth.

Modifié par Il Divo, 02 novembre 2011 - 02:17 .

[esper]

Il Divo wrote...

esper wrote...

I study litterature and came across a saying somewhere saying that there are only seven different stories in the world and of course that comes with there are only are different number of archetypes and characters in the world. If you generlize too much everyone will be the same.

I don't remember the number, but I do recall hearing this as well. Do you know off-hand what those seven stories are? The only one I know of is the monomyth.

It is sadly too long since I read it, but there was a nice list of the stories and everything.  (And even if I still had it, I properly wouldn't be able to translate all the words to english, since my dictonary is not that advanced)
I imagine that tragedy and comedy is genres as well. And the quest from the epos course. (I wonder if Katabase - journey to the underworld and back falls under that category.). 


 

[Cyberstrike nTo]

David Gaider wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Could someone give me the entire gist of this Kasumi DLC beyond "It's a heist where you infiltrate a party for something!"? Spoilers and everything is what I'd like.

Because something tells me that if you look beyond the very superficial similarities of "It's a heist" the two DLCs are radically different.

Some people really like to take stories/characters with similarities, ignore everything that makes them different, and then declare them too similar as if that kind of reduction was in and of itself a profound observation.

I've never played Stolen Memory and don't know much about it beyond the fact it involves Kasumi and a heist. If there are similarities between it and MotA, I'm not certain why I or anyone else should care so long as the tales are enjoyable.

You should watch the Firefly episode called "Trash" it has several similarities between Stolen Memories and Mark of the Assassin.

[Bayz]

David Gaider wrote...

I've never played Stolen Memory and don't know much about it beyond the fact it involves Kasumi and a heist. If there are similarities between it and MotA, I'm not certain why I or anyone else should care so long as the tales are enjoyable.

This. It is impossible after millenia of writting in human history in different cultures and different languages to write anything absolutely original. Writting in a way that people could feel interesting enough to hook them up is the trick.

[txgoldrush]

Bayz wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

I've never played Stolen Memory and don't know much about it beyond the fact it involves Kasumi and a heist. If there are similarities between it and MotA, I'm not certain why I or anyone else should care so long as the tales are enjoyable.

This. It is impossible after millenia of writting in human history in different cultures and different languages to write anything absolutely original. Writting in a way that people could feel interesting enough to hook them up is the trick.

However, writers should not keep telling the same story over and over with a different paint job. Nothing is original, but don't be so blantantly obvious about it.

The best writers give a much better illusion of originality while the ones criticized do a poor job. Bioware, until DAII, fails at this because, one reason, they recycle their own plots and characters not just others.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 03 novembre 2011 - 09:19 .

[txgoldrush]

esper wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

I just love this graphic, it is so true and it pisses FFVII fans off......and I can do the same for Kasumi Stolen Memory and Mask of the Assassin...this is what happens when story elements are TOO similiar.



And this graphic is being TOO leinant....they forgot the fact that Terra...ummm...I mean Cloud becomes comatose and the party has to restore his, I mean her memories to revive her, I mean him. Cloud also has heavily elements of Celes's character (who I find FFVI's true pritagonist in the second half) and her journey as a character who was a former solider of the bad guys who at first is cold, damaged, and introverted, but becomes more open and heroic as the game goes along. Also, Safer Sephiroth's boss fight is almost completely recycled from Kefka's final form. He has got some of the exact same attacks too.

FFVII, greatest RPG ever? Nope, more like most overrated RPG ever. And really, FFVI is the much more influential FF game ever from a storytelling point of view.

And then the recycling doesn't end here, a poster comparing VII to IX.

"lol @ the VI-VII plot being the same. So true. I think VII and IX can be compared too. The game begins with a cocky hero Cloud/Zidane who teams up with a group of rouges called Avalanche/Tantalus who are out to defeat the evil Shinra/Queen. However later on it is revealed that the true evil is not the Shinra/Queen but on the mysterious white-haired Sephiroth/Kuja who is the real bad guy. Then again it's revealed that both Cloud&Sephiroth/Zidane&Kuja are connected due to being experimented on/created by Hojo/Garland."

Hell, I found IX to be very similiar to VI in main narrative theme and villian (until the end).

Really fans, do you want Bioware doing this? Or do you want them branching out and try to at least tell very different tales with very different character archtypes? I stopped being a fan of the FF series because it has become more and more creatively bankrupt. I do not want to do the same for Bioware games.

It is true that final fantasy have something for the evil empire vs. a small group of heroes + later plot twist since final fantasy VI . (I never played VII and VIII, but it seems to be the same). However the different branches and themes and characters in the good stories justifies this untill XII which in my opinion didn't deliver in character or world depth, there was no plot twist and Larza's big brother was the villian from start to end.  

I liked that bioware went away from their normal formula in dragon age 2, don't get me wrong, but you can't say that Sebastian/Alistar/Jacob/Sky is the same person because they are good alligened and has lost someone close to them that is too broad a brush.

I study litterature and came across a saying somewhere saying that there are only seven different stories in the world and of course that comes with there are only are different number of archetypes and characters in the world. If you generlize too much everyone will be the same.

The themes are recycled and the characters are recycled as every game is about saving the world from a nihilist who wants to destroy all life. Most FF protagonists fit one of two archtypes...the gruff solider/merc or the lovable free spirited youth. Many of the support characters do as well, especially leading female support characters.  While FFVI took some influence from FFII, it was the pioneer for not only the series but maybe the JRPG genre. It was the first FF to have a female protagonist (in fact, I can say it has two female protagonists), the first FF to break the tradition of the four elemental crystals, the first FF not to take place in the medieval era, the first FF game to blame the troubles of the world on humanity itself and not some dark god or demon, the first true human main antagonist, and the first FF to truly explore social issues. In a sense, the game was original for Squaresoft, when they stopped recycling their old plots and took a step forward. Now outside of  some spinoffs by Matsuno, the storytelling has not only stagnanted due to plots and characters being recycled, the storytelling as gotten worse (although FFXII was ruined by company internal divisions that drove Matsuno out). There is no wonder why the storytelling in JRPGs for the most part are called cliche, because they for the most part keep recycling plots and characters such as amnesic heroes, save the world plots, evil empires, evil churches, and now, even time travel. Its become a me too genre.

"I liked that bioware went away from their normal formula in dragon age 2, don't get me wrong, but you can't say that Sebastian/Alistar/Jacob/Sky is the same person because they are good alligened and has lost someone close to them that is too broad a brush."

The brush is not too broad when they all play the same role as well, they are all the first male character introduced or the most prominent. I would exclude Sebastian though, his role is far different from the "lead player to do good role".

[Lord of Mu]

I felt like I was playing Felicia Day's stolen memory when I was trying out the Mark of the Assassin DLC. Maybe they'll do something new and unique with the next DLC?

[Noatz]

I think there is a formula, or at least a style of writing that one gets used to when playing Bioware's material that allows you to make certain assumptions at the onset and usually be correct.

In this case, when you meet the femme fatale rogue who randomly propositions you like Danny Ocean I made the following predictions:

> Not all she seems.
> The jewel is not going to be a jewel.
> The Duke will also be involved with whatever is really going on.

And whaddayaknow. But despite this I still enjoyed the DLC, more so than Legacy truth be told though this I suspect is more down to the setting. There was more variety in MotA - you have the Wyvern Hunt, stealthing around the castle and puzzles in the vault wheras Legacy is all just as Fenris puts it: "a black pit, full of evil.".

Would it be nice if Bioware were a bit less predictable with where they go with some of these stories? Yeah. But is it a deal breaker that will stop me enjoying them? Hardly.

Honestly my biggest issue in this regard is with the DLC model itself. Sure we might get the same amount of content in the end as an expansion but think of DA:O Awakening packaged as Blackmarsh DLC, Kal'Hirol DLC and Wending Wood DLC. The whole is more than the sum of its parts; we're just getting the parts.