942 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

Maria Caliban wrote...

FedericoV wrote...
The true protagonist of a fantasy narrative is the setting, imho.

This is the reason why the fantasy genre is brimming with bad stories and the science fiction genre is dying out.

Settings are awesome. They in no way a replacement for strong plot and characters. The protagonist is the protagonist, not the author's carefully crafted dragon language.

OMGYES.

This is why A Song of Ice and Fire had me so pissed off after the last book.
<_<

[FedericoV]

Maria Caliban wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

The true protagonist of a fantasy narrative is the setting, imho.

This is the reason why the fantasy genre is brimming with bad stories and the science fiction genre is dying out.

Imho, it's a banality: the fantasy genre is brimming with the same amount of bad/average/good stories that you could find in any genre. There are not a lot of Cormac McCarthy or Nick Hornby in literary fiction. Imho, the only true and objective fault of the fantasy genre as a whole is excessive serialization and lack of concision. Good and artsy world-building remain the greatest assett of any fantasy narrative in my view.

I'm not an expert about sci-fi so I cannot talk about the issue: I only read some Asimov, Henlein and Philip K. Dick. The usual stuff.

Settings are awesome. They are in no way a replacement for strong plot and characters.

I guess I've not expressed my view properly then. I've not said that a good fantasy can be written without interesting charachters or that good world-building is a replacement for good charachter development. You need those too otherwise all you got is an empty vessel off course. I've said that the setting is the main protagonist of a good fantasy story. At least that's been my experience with the good fantasy I've read during the years.

The protagonist is the protagonist, not the author's carefully crafted dragon language.

The point is not dragon languages or misteries like... I don't know... "who are the parents of Jon Snow". That's one of the recurrent mistakes of many aspiring fantasy authors (they think that good world building is like drafting a setting for D&D).

Fantasy is a romantic genre. One of the main theme of romanticism is the shadow of the past, the melancholy for what has been lost or the desperation for what will be lost. If the setting is not alive, if it's not a living charachter beside the main cast, no one will care about that (and no one will care about the charachters as well then). If that sentiment is not present, imho there is not even point to write fantasy at all: it just became a silly dress for a story. 

Modifié par FedericoV, 03 avril 2012 - 07:42 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Did you see the edit I made last night?

I did, but I wanted to make the distinction clearer for other readers.

And I still don't think your initial conclusion holds.  Yes, in the abstract BioWare wants players not to experience a different narrative because doing so precludes experiencing theirs.  And having players experience their narrative is a firm BioWare preference.

But for players who have no interest in BioWare's narrative, they're not going to bother experiencing it regardless of the other options.  Either they'll experience a different narrative or not at all.  Wanting those players not to experience a different narrative benefits BioWare not at all.  It doesn't get any extra people to experience BioWare's narrative, so they should be indifferent to whether they experience a different narrative.

I would understand BioWare going out of their way to damage my playstyle if doing so benefitted them at all.  But in this case, it doesn't.  Since I doubt they're malicious, I think they've just made a mistake.  I hope to show them that mistake.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And I still don't think your initial conclusion holds.

Because the of the way narrative functions, experiencing once narrative on a story means that you are not experiencing an alternate narrative of the same story. "Experiencing A" is a subset of "Not experiencing B." So if they want you to experience A, it automatically means they want you to not experience B. The first directly implies the second.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

This is the reason why the fantasy genre is brimming with bad stories and the science fiction genre is dying out.

Settings are awesome. They are in no way a replacement for strong plot and characters. The protagonist is the protagonist, not the author's carefully crafted dragon language.

The new and fully detailed setting is the reason, though, to choose fantasy over some other genre.  Other genres have strong plots and characters, but they lack fantasy's detailed settings.

The setting is the draw.  I care whether some local lord exempts the clergy from his taxes, and what social consequences that might have, even if that's not strictly relevant to the story being told.

This is the reason, I think, that fantasy is such a popular roleplauing setting, as well.  By offering mountains of lore, the players are given a rich playground in which to explore their characters.

Yes, there are weak stories in fantasy, but a weak story doesn't harm a roleplaying game.  A weak setting does.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And I still don't think your initial conclusion holds.

Because the of the way narrative functions, experiencing once narrative on a story means that you are not experiencing an alternate narrative of the same story. "Experiencing A" is a subset of "Not experiencing B." So if they want you to experience A, it automatically means they want you to not experience B. The first directly implies the second.

But it's not a strict biconditional.  Simply preventing B doesn't guarantee A.  If A is already excluded, preventing B makes no material difference.

So why bother doing it?

The only way BioWare actually benefits from making alternate narratives impossible is if they think players who would otherwise have experiences a different narrative will instead experience and enjoy BioWare's narrative.

But why would that be the case?  People who want to experience BioWare's narrative will experience BioWare's narrative.  It's right there.  It's easy to follow.

People who don't want to experience BioWare's narrative will not appreciate being forced to do so.

So again, why would BioWare do that?

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But it's not a strict biconditional.  Simply preventing B doesn't guarantee A.  If A is already excluded, preventing B makes no material difference.

So why bother doing it?

A is a subest of B. If A then B.

You cannot have A, unless you also have B.

You cannot experience one narrative unless you don't experience an alternate narrative.

Requiring A implies requiring B.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
People who don't want to experience BioWare's narrative will not appreciate being forced to do so.

So again, why would BioWare do that?

Because the narrative is what they are offering.

Role playing is not what they are offering. Role playing comes on the side, when it doesn't interfere with the narrative. I said at the beginning of this line of questioning that the goal was to present the narrative, not to present role playing.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 03 avril 2012 - 07:25 .

[FedericoV]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

FedericoV wrote...
The true protagonist of a fantasy narrative is the setting, imho.

This is the reason why the fantasy genre is brimming with bad stories and the science fiction genre is dying out.

Settings are awesome. They in no way a replacement for strong plot and characters. The protagonist is the protagonist, not the author's carefully crafted dragon language.

OMGYES.

This is why A Song of Ice and Fire had me so pissed off after the last book.
<_<

Martin has written his best books too with that kind of style. Personally, while I appreciate even AFfC and ADwD, I think that the weaker parts of his last couple of books have more to do with bad editing, writer's block and lack of brevity than the personality (or lack thereoff) of the setting.  

[the_one_54321]

FedericoV wrote...
Martin has written his best books too with that kind of style. Personally, while I appreciate even AFfC and ADwD, I think that the weaker parts of his last couple of books have more to do with bad editing, writer's block and lack of brevity than the personality (or lack thereoff) of the setting.

Because of the character choices he has ostensibly made, I no longer give a crap about his world. I want the whole thing to burn down. All the people suck, kill everyone.

(some hyperbole, but mostly candid)

[FedericoV]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Because of the character choices he has ostensibly made, I no longer give a crap about his world. I want the whole thing to burn down. All the people suck, kill everyone.

Be carefull what you wish for . Whatever you feel about ASoIaF, my point is simply that its problems have not a lot to do with the relevance of GRRM's world building. Then, I guess anyone is entitled to his own opinion.

(some hyperbole, but mostly candid)

You're welcome!

Modifié par FedericoV, 03 avril 2012 - 07:41 .

[Nighteye2]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...

People are free to feel any way they want. My argument is not about how I or anyone else feels while playing the game. IT's more about definition. At what point can the player be considered to be fully in control of his character, within the limitations of the game setting and the limited resources for programming choices and responses?

I argue that any action taken by the player character that is not a direct result of a command given by the player equals a loss of control by that player. Would you dispute that?

How much loss of control is considered acceptable varies from player to player, naturally - but that's not the issue here.

You're equating control with ownership, and that's flawed. I don't have to control a pet to own it. 

The issue is whether someone feels like he or she owns the character. You feel you don't. I feel I do. I find the act of telling me that I don't own the character based on your own subjective metric to be incredibly egocentric.

I'm talking about control here, not ownership. As I already said, how much control you need to feel ownership is subjective - so it's perfectly fine for you to have a different threshold than me or sylvius.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

You cannot experience one narrative unless you don't experience an alternate narrative.

But if you already cannot experience one narrative, then whether you experience an alternate narrative is irrelevant.

It's a material conditional, not an indicative conditional.

Because the narrative is what they are offering.

Role playing is not what they are offering. Role playing comes on the side, when it doesn't interfere with the narrative. I said at the beginning of this line of questioning that the goal was to present the narrative, not to present role playing.

We've been saying the same things back and forth past each other for pages now.

You're advancing the position that BioWare has no reason to offer narrative B, because they only care about narrative A.

I'm advancing the position that BioWare wants to maximise the consumption of narrative A, and beyond that they have no reason to care about narrative B.

You seem to think that my claim that BioWare has no reason to care about narrative B is universal, or that it in some way prevents them from maximising the consumption of A.

[FedericoV]

BobSmith101 wrote...

It's been done,and often. Not suprisingly by the Japanese.Radiant Dawn would be one of the more recent examples.

Unfortunately I've never played a JRPG in my life (maybe because I never own a consolle untill very recently). A curiosity: is the multiple POV system good? Do you think that it could work in a WRPG considering the different audience?

Modifié par FedericoV, 03 avril 2012 - 09:08 .

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I'm advancing the position that BioWare wants to maximise the consumption of narrative A, and beyond that they have no reason to care about narrative B.

They care about narrative B because, if you experience narrative B, it affects your perception of narrative A.

In this specific instance, there is extra information in narrative A. If you did not view that information, you did not experience narrative A. They want you to experience narrative A. Therefore, they should not allow you to skip that information.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I'm advancing the position that BioWare wants to maximise the consumption of narrative A, and beyond that they have no reason to care about narrative B.

They care about narrative B because, if you experience narrative B, it affects your perception of narrative A.

In this specific instance, there is extra information in narrative A. If you did not view that information, you did not experience narrative A. They want you to experience narrative A. Therefore, they should not allow you to skip that information.

But we're already skipping that information.  So given that, why take extra steps to prevent a replacement narrative once we've rejected the first one?

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But we're already skipping that information.

If they are not able to force it down your throat, then they're not. But considering what their goal is, they have no reason to acquiesce.

[Mr Fixit]

FedericoV wrote...

Whatever you feel about ASoIaF, my point is simply that its problems have not a lot to do with the relevance of GRRM's world building. Then, I guess anyone is entitled to his own opinion.

I would even go so far and say that AFfC, for all its plot-related weaknesses, is actually quite good in the world-building department. Martin's exploration of the land ravaged by war is very evocative, culminating with a fantastic monologue by that one traveling priest on the nature of war.

Unfortunately, Martin seems to care more about the setting than the characters and plot, which to me seems like the greatest problem of A Feast for Crows.

[the_one_54321]

Mr Fixit wrote...

FedericoV wrote...
Whatever you feel about ASoIaF, my point is simply that its problems have not a lot to do with the relevance of GRRM's world building. Then, I guess anyone is entitled to his own opinion.

I would even go so far and say that AFfC, for all its plot-related weaknesses, is actually quite good in the world-building department. Martin's exploration of the land ravaged by war is very evocative, culminating with a fantastic monologue by that one traveling priest on the nature of war.

Unfortunately, Martin seems to care more about the setting than the characters and plot, which to me seems like the greatest problem of A Feast for Crows.

I had a hard time caring about AFfC, because I never much cared for anyone in AFfC. And then the other stuff happened in the next book, and I stopped feeling anything except hate and the desire for total destruction.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But we're already skipping that information.

If they are not able to force it down your throat, then they're not. But considering what their goal is, they have no reason to acquiesce.

What acquiescence?  I'm not asking them to back down on any issue about which they have any reason to care.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
they have any reason to care.

They want to present that narrative. That is a reason for them to care.

You cannot opperate under the assumption that every want must be logically motivated. Wants often are not. All that matters is that they want this. Therfore, they have no reason to offer something else to you.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
they have any reason to care.

They want to present that narrative. That is a reason for them to care.

That they want to present their narrative is a reason for them to care about their narrative.

Once that has been denied them, they derive no benefit from denying me an alternative narrative.  They're employing cinematic tools which, in cinema, are merely a question of style, but in a roleplaying game they carry with them the burden of other external effects beyond the narrative.

You cannot opperate under the assumption that every want must be logically motivated. Wants often are not.

Perhaps not initially, but I'm here to make them think about it so that they resolve the conflict.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 03 avril 2012 - 09:52 .

[Mr Fixit]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I had a hard time caring about AFfC, because I never much cared for anyone in AFfC. And then the other stuff happened in the next book, and I stopped feeling anything except hate and the desire for total destruction.

AFfC and ADwD were always intended as "transitory" books that set the scene for the conclusion (indeed, they were supposed to be one book). Less than graceful as they may have been, I still have high hopes for the series when Martin hopefully gets his act together, now that all these chess pieces have been moved to the intended place.

Modifié par Mr Fixit, 03 avril 2012 - 09:56 .

[FedericoV]

Mr Fixit wrote...

I would even go so far and say that AFfC, for all its plot-related weaknesses, is actually quite good in the world-building department. Martin's exploration of the land ravaged by war is very evocative, culminating with a fantastic monologue by that one traveling priest on the nature of war.

Septon Merribald speech: one of my favourite passage of the entire series. You have good taste sir .

Unfortunately, Martin seems to care more about the setting than the characters and plot, which to me seems like the greatest problem of A Feast for Crows.

I have a different position: Martin never truly recovered in term of plot/charachter advancement after the "failure" of the 5 year gap. His masterplan do not involved AFfC and ADwD as they have been written and published: nothing significative was meant to happen in the years covered by those book. So he used a lot of filler with travelogues and the like, to mask the weakness of the main narrative. Add to that VERY bad editing decision and even with all his skills and craft, you get two inferior books than the first three. Mind, I still like them... but I am a fan.

Just to say: I understand The One's reaction. But I'm still here for the ride. Sorry for the OT: Hackett Out !

Modifié par FedericoV, 03 avril 2012 - 10:18 .

[Mr Fixit]

FedericoV wrote...

I have a different position: Martin never truly recovered in term of plot/charachter advancement after the "failure" of the 5 year gap. His masterplan do not involved AFfC and ADwD as they have been written and published: nothing significative was meant to happen in the years covered by those book. So he used a lot of filler with travelogues and the like, to mask the weakness of the main narrative. Add to that VERY bad editing decision and even with all his skills and craft, you get two inferior books than the first three.

True. That's why I still believe Martin's final two books will represent a return to form. Now that he's back on track with his original plan, there's no reason not to expect heavily-plotted and briskly-paced masterpieces. I hope.

[Morroian]

the_one_54321 wrote...

FedericoV wrote...
Martin has written his best books too with that kind of style. Personally, while I appreciate even AFfC and ADwD, I think that the weaker parts of his last couple of books have more to do with bad editing, writer's block and lack of brevity than the personality (or lack thereoff) of the setting.

Because of the character choices he has ostensibly made, I no longer give a crap about his world. I want the whole thing to burn down. All the people suck, kill everyone.

(some hyperbole, but mostly candid)

This is pretty much how I feel about it and I haven't even read AFFC or ADWD yet.