136 réponses à ce sujet

[esper]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Being different for sake of being different does not make something good, it just makes it different.

Some people will like that difference and some will not.

I see no reason to intentionally go out of your way to avoid any tropes.

That depends if you as the writer thinks you can use those tropes or not.

If the very thought of the clichess makes you sick, then you should properly avoid them like the plauge since changes are you wouldn't be able to use them well.

If you like a specific trope changes are you at least have some idea of how to use it. (As you properly have seen it in use a lot of time before).

[Fast Jimmy]

But the first other template to the 'heroes' story would be the tragedy which is not simply a subversion of the heroes story. After all tragedies are as old as the hero's journey and as well loved. Comedies are often not this either, as they often ridicule the hero in every turn and the protagonist often end up having travel essansial nowhere. They are also really, really old.

At times, I felt that Hawke's story was a Tragic Comedy. Or a Comic Tragedy. Not sure if there is a difference.

It was a story about someone who tried to be the hero - to themselves, to their family, to their friends and to a city - and failed. In fact, if Hawke had died outside of Lothering instead of Bethant or Carver, I've postulated in the past that everyone's lives would have been better, outside of one or two people.

Varric and Bartrand wouldn't have been able to successfully find their Deep Roads expedition, or, if they had, wouldn't have been able to find the maps necessary to get to the Primevael Ruins, or, at worst, wouldn't have been able to fight their way to the idol. No idol, no crazy Meredith, no divide between Varric and his brother.

Isabella would have not had Hawke's help in remaining hidden in Kirkwall. This would have forced her to run away or be captured. Not good outcomes for her, undoubtedly, but the Qunari would have left once their prey fled or was caught, sparing the lives of many.

Merrill would have never had a protector in Kirkwall which would cause her to leave her clan, a choice that results in her mentor becoming an Abomination and dying and her clan being slaughtered or deserting her.

Anders would have either been caught or forced to flee, meaning he would have never blew up the Chantry and resulted in a civil war in Kirkwall.

Both the Viscount and the Elthina would have remained alive to keep Meredith and Orsino from reaching dangerous levels. Without the idol, Meredith wouldn't have reached her paranoid levels. And without Hawke's involvement with chasing off or killing the one real lead at catching the serial killer in Act 2, he might have been caught and killed, preventing his dark research from continuing.

Fenris might have been caught or he might not have. Aveline and Hawke's family would have died without Flemeth's involvement, but we don't know if Hawke was special there or if Flemeth just needed a pack mule to Kirkwall. If the pack mule theory is true, Carver, Bethany or Aveline could have sufficed and not resulted in so much terror being unleashed.

I had a few more examples, but I think this is sufficient. Hawke not only brings about his own downfall, in true Shakespearean style, but actively makes the lives of everyone in Kirkwall worse, by and large. Everyone who met Hawke likely regretted it. Hawke is the antagonist of DA2. Hawke is the reason everyone experiences terrible, terrible maladies, all disguised by a good intentions.

[ianvillan]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

But the first other template to the 'heroes' story would be the tragedy which is not simply a subversion of the heroes story. After all tragedies are as old as the hero's journey and as well loved. Comedies are often not this either, as they often ridicule the hero in every turn and the protagonist often end up having travel essansial nowhere. They are also really, really old.

At times, I felt that Hawke's story was a Tragic Comedy. Or a Comic Tragedy. Not sure if there is a difference.

It was a story about someone who tried to be the hero - to themselves, to their family, to their friends and to a city - and failed. In fact, if Hawke had died outside of Lothering instead of Bethant or Carver, I've postulated in the past that everyone's lives would have been better, outside of one or two people.

Varric and Bartrand wouldn't have been able to successfully find their Deep Roads expedition, or, if they had, wouldn't have been able to find the maps necessary to get to the Primevael Ruins, or, at worst, wouldn't have been able to fight their way to the idol. No idol, no crazy Meredith, no divide between Varric and his brother.

Isabella would have not had Hawke's help in remaining hidden in Kirkwall. This would have forced her to run away or be captured. Not good outcomes for her, undoubtedly, but the Qunari would have left once their prey fled or was caught, sparing the lives of many.

Merrill would have never had a protector in Kirkwall which would cause her to leave her clan, a choice that results in her mentor becoming an Abomination and dying and her clan being slaughtered or deserting her.

Anders would have either been caught or forced to flee, meaning he would have never blew up the Chantry and resulted in a civil war in Kirkwall.

Both the Viscount and the Elthina would have remained alive to keep Meredith and Orsino from reaching dangerous levels. Without the idol, Meredith wouldn't have reached her paranoid levels. And without Hawke's involvement with chasing off or killing the one real lead at catching the serial killer in Act 2, he might have been caught and killed, preventing his dark research from continuing.

Fenris might have been caught or he might not have. Aveline and Hawke's family would have died without Flemeth's involvement, but we don't know if Hawke was special there or if Flemeth just needed a pack mule to Kirkwall. If the pack mule theory is true, Carver, Bethany or Aveline could have sufficed and not resulted in so much terror being unleashed.

I had a few more examples, but I think this is sufficient. Hawke not only brings about his own downfall, in true Shakespearean style, but actively makes the lives of everyone in Kirkwall worse, by and large. Everyone who met Hawke likely regretted it. Hawke is the antagonist of DA2. Hawke is the reason everyone experiences terrible, terrible maladies, all disguised by a good intentions.

Hawke also was responsible for the release of Corypheus a great danger to the world and Hawke was able to help talis in helping the Qunari which could mean an invasion.

Modifié par ianvillan, 15 janvier 2013 - 10:05 .

[Fast Jimmy]

^

I didn't want to bring DLC into it, but those are some excellent points as well.

[esper]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

But the first other template to the 'heroes' story would be the tragedy which is not simply a subversion of the heroes story. After all tragedies are as old as the hero's journey and as well loved. Comedies are often not this either, as they often ridicule the hero in every turn and the protagonist often end up having travel essansial nowhere. They are also really, really old.

At times, I felt that Hawke's story was a Tragic Comedy. Or a Comic Tragedy. Not sure if there is a difference.

It was a story about someone who tried to be the hero - to themselves, to their family, to their friends and to a city - and failed. In fact, if Hawke had died outside of Lothering instead of Bethant or Carver, I've postulated in the past that everyone's lives would have been better, outside of one or two people.

Varric and Bartrand wouldn't have been able to successfully find their Deep Roads expedition, or, if they had, wouldn't have been able to find the maps necessary to get to the Primevael Ruins, or, at worst, wouldn't have been able to fight their way to the idol. No idol, no crazy Meredith, no divide between Varric and his brother.

Isabella would have not had Hawke's help in remaining hidden in Kirkwall. This would have forced her to run away or be captured. Not good outcomes for her, undoubtedly, but the Qunari would have left once their prey fled or was caught, sparing the lives of many.

Merrill would have never had a protector in Kirkwall which would cause her to leave her clan, a choice that results in her mentor becoming an Abomination and dying and her clan being slaughtered or deserting her.

Anders would have either been caught or forced to flee, meaning he would have never blew up the Chantry and resulted in a civil war in Kirkwall.

Both the Viscount and the Elthina would have remained alive to keep Meredith and Orsino from reaching dangerous levels. Without the idol, Meredith wouldn't have reached her paranoid levels. And without Hawke's involvement with chasing off or killing the one real lead at catching the serial killer in Act 2, he might have been caught and killed, preventing his dark research from continuing.

Fenris might have been caught or he might not have. Aveline and Hawke's family would have died without Flemeth's involvement, but we don't know if Hawke was special there or if Flemeth just needed a pack mule to Kirkwall. If the pack mule theory is true, Carver, Bethany or Aveline could have sufficed and not resulted in so much terror being unleashed.

I had a few more examples, but I think this is sufficient. Hawke not only brings about his own downfall, in true Shakespearean style, but actively makes the lives of everyone in Kirkwall worse, by and large. Everyone who met Hawke likely regretted it. Hawke is the antagonist of DA2. Hawke is the reason everyone experiences terrible, terrible maladies, all disguised by a good intentions.

Of course you are going out of the assumption that Hawke wanted to stop these things.

1. Varric and Batrand, well that was their problem, the idol things wasn't so good though. Neither I can find an excuse for Coryphues. Tallis I don't know what to feel about. The ending to that DLC felt so forced and Tallis felt so forced that I have a hard time taking her seriously.
2. I think Isabella would have fleed, but I don't think the Qunari would have left, because honestly the couldn't leave without any equipment. Remember Isabella is optional. If Hawke doesn't meet her, she manage to avoid the Qunari just fine off her own which doesn't cause the Qunari to magically leave.
3. Fenris don't do much harm either way, as for the packmule theory, as stated. We don't know. This is Flemeth, we don't anything about her. If the packmule theory is true though, Merrill would have left either way as she would just have travelled with Carver and/or Bethany. She just needed to get to the alianage.
4. My Hawke never wanted to stop the civil war nor the mage templar war. She wanted Meridith death, she wanted the mage/templar war. She wanted the system broken down, and by act 3 she didn't care about the method. She never tried to stop Anders in this, and was actually offended that he presumed she would try. Anders just got the better idea off blowing up Elthina which in hindsight of course was smarter for the long term goal. (-Hawke's point of view)

Hawke is not and can never be the antagonist of da2, though. Antagonist means opposing the protagonist, as Hawke is the protagonist (and she is,there is no discussion that) she cannot be the antagonist in this sort of genre. There is no demand though, that the antagonist have to be evil or that the protagnoist have to be good. The best stories I have read have genuially good persons in the antagonist roles.
I am fully aware that by act three my canon Hawke was more and less toeing the line of villain protagonist. That was what made it fun to play.

[ianvillan]

krul2k wrote...

awesome aint she

Hawke has to be the greatest hero in the history of thedas. 

[esper]

ianvillan wrote...

krul2k wrote...

awesome aint she

Hawke has to be the greatest hero in the history of thedas. 

We were never promised a hero. We were promised an important person for the world of Thedas. Unwitting catalyst for X number of catastrofes fits that decription.

[TheJediSaint]

esper wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

krul2k wrote...

awesome aint she

Hawke has to be the greatest hero in the history of thedas. 

We were never promised a hero. We were promised an important person for the world of Thedas. Unwitting catalyst for X number of catastrofes fits that decription.

To be fair, Hawke was not the first Bioware protagonist to be a doom-magnet.

[ianvillan]

esper wrote...

Of course you are going out of the assumption that Hawke wanted to stop these things.

1. Varric and Batrand, well that was their problem, the idol things wasn't so good though. Neither I can find an excuse for Coryphues. Tallis I don't know what to feel about. The ending to that DLC felt so forced and Tallis felt so forced that I have a hard time taking her seriously.
2. I think Isabella would have fleed, but I don't think the Qunari would have left, because honestly the couldn't leave without any equipment. Remember Isabella is optional. If Hawke doesn't meet her, she manage to avoid the Qunari just fine off her own which doesn't cause the Qunari to magically leave.
3. Fenris don't do much harm either way, as for the packmule theory, as stated. We don't know. This is Flemeth, we don't anything about her. If the packmule theory is true though, Merrill would have left either way as she would just have travelled with Carver and/or Bethany. She just needed to get to the alianage.
4. My Hawke never wanted to stop the civil war nor the mage templar war. She wanted Meridith death, she wanted the mage/templar war. She wanted the system broken down, and by act 3 she didn't care about the method. She never tried to stop Anders in this, and was actually offended that he presumed she would try. Anders just got the better idea off blowing up Elthina which in hindsight of course was smarter for the long term goal. (-Hawke's point of view)

Hawke is not and can never be the antagonist of da2, though. Antagonist means opposing the protagonist, as Hawke is the protagonist (and she is,there is no discussion that) she cannot be the antagonist in this sort of genre. There is no demand though, that the antagonist have to be evil or that the protagnoist have to be good. The best stories I have read have genuially good persons in the antagonist roles.
I am fully aware that by act three my canon Hawke was more and less toeing the line of villain protagonist. That was what made it fun to play.

My Hawke wanted to go home to ferelden after they had got the money from the deep roads expedition but stupidly decided to in crazy town.

[Fast Jimmy]

The protagonist could very easily have been Varric. He was, after all, the one telling the story, where the narrative of DA2 starts and ends. And Hawke could very well have been his antagonist: killing/driving insane his brother, costing him lots of time and resources, getting him involved in a crazy revolution he wants no part of and then, to top it off, three years after seeing the person who caused him all this misery, he gets abducted by Chantry Gestapo because of his association with said Hawke.

Hawke and Varric could be friends, but Varric could very well be the protagonist and, hence, Hawke the antagonist.

[esper]

TheJediSaint wrote...

esper wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

krul2k wrote...

awesome aint she

Hawke has to be the greatest hero in the history of thedas. 

We were never promised a hero. We were promised an important person for the world of Thedas. Unwitting catalyst for X number of catastrofes fits that decription.

To be fair, Hawke was not the first Bioware protagonist to be a doom-magnet.

A lot of protagonists in games are. It is like they have this giant sign written, 'Kick me world, I like' it' on their back.

[AstraDrakkar]

Nothing wrong with "the hero's journey" formula in my opinion. I like playing a hero in my games. Most people like to feel important. Thats why the formula works.

[esper]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The protagonist could very easily have been Varric. He was, after all, the one telling the story, where the narrative of DA2 starts and ends. And Hawke could very well have been his antagonist: killing/driving insane his brother, costing him lots of time and resources, getting him involved in a crazy revolution he wants no part of and then, to top it off, three years after seeing the person who caused him all this misery, he gets abducted by Chantry Gestapo because of his association with said Hawke.

Hawke and Varric could be friends, but Varric could very well be the protagonist and, hence, Hawke the antagonist.

The protagonist could, be it wasn't.  Just as the protagonist of da:o could have easily been Alistair in which case it would have been an coming of age historie of accepting your responsibility or not. Da:o wasn't that story. The discussion of these are kinda pointless, since these two stories wasn't told. You can make good fanfiction of it, though. Narrative device flips are often funny.


The narrator =/= from protagonist.

[ianvillan]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The protagonist could very easily have been Varric. He was, after all, the one telling the story, where the narrative of DA2 starts and ends. And Hawke could very well have been his antagonist: killing/driving insane his brother, costing him lots of time and resources, getting him involved in a crazy revolution he wants no part of and then, to top it off, three years after seeing the person who caused him all this misery, he gets abducted by Chantry Gestapo because of his association with said Hawke.

Hawke and Varric could be friends, but Varric could very well be the protagonist and, hence, Hawke the antagonist.

Maybe Varric got so fed up with Hawkes incompetence that he killed Hawke, thats why we have no ideas what happened to Hawke.

[rapscallioness]

I think we're just obsessed with it as a template for story. Some modern artists may now consciously pull from it as a template, but we've been telling this same story unconsciously since the human species has been telling story.

It's a basic structure, but how we flesh it out is the difference.

I don't think the "Hero's Journey" is really one type of myth, as it is the prevailing similarities Campbell (amongst others) discerned between stories that ranged across culture and time.

Carl Jung noticed the same thing w/Archetypes within the human psyche.

I think the reason we keep telling the same story; keep replaying it over and over is because it is our story. We are the hero in it because we are the hero of our own life story.

And there is tragedy. The hero may make it out in the end, but the journey was full of tragedy and trial. Death.

Humans look to story to help us understand ourselves. The universal questions of existence. Who am I? Why am I here? What is this place? How does this work? Where am I going. What do I do? What is the meaning?

Story is powerful stuff. You're dabbling with the deepest recesses of the human psyche. Story is medicine, and in the wrong hands it is poison.

Story is a road map for the soul. It is how we learn and understand thru metaphor and symbol. A GPS device, if you will. That's why stories with happy endings are by far the most popular. Cuz ppl are essentially trying to figure how they can claw their way out of the pit. Or if it's even possible.

Our real lives and the struggles we go thru are "cliche". Just like the stories we see and hear being told, and their similarities, such is our story. Every story is fleshed out differently, but there are certain overriding themes.

But story is what can guide us. A GPS. Which is why I don't really care for the type of story that leads me to, and leaves me stranded in a bad neighborhood at 3 am. That's a lousy gps, imo.

But it's always gonna be abt obstacles; overcoming them; and growth because that is what this existence is about. this level of existence anyway. maybe in another time and place we will find new myths to turn into cliche. i have no doubt we will.

ugh, this is a jumbled post....

tldr: i don't think BW could stop w/the hero's journey myth if it wanted to. it's bigger than them. there's the anti hero, i guess. but even that seems to be the same structure. diff. motivation, but the same steps...

[Wozearly]

Trista Faux Hawke wrote...

I once thought of an open-world RPG video game in which you play an NPC - sorta. I mean, you're not an NPC, since you're playable, but you play the guy/girl standing off to the sidelines. Maybe you're the merchant in town, or the guard outside the palace, or the random bystander. You can customize and level up and do all the things one would normally do with a playable character - but honey, you're NOT the hero. lol.

Meanwhile there IS this HERO running around the world, doing all these heroic things and you keep hearing everyone talk about him like he's some kind of awesome GOD or something.

Meanwhile you're kinda like, "ugh screw that guy" and no one ever treats you like a hero, ever. lol.

I think that'd be a great game.

Your life might just maybe be made a little bit brighter by looking up an called Dink Smallwood. It was originally released way back in 1997, but the original creator made an HD version in late 2011 and its still free to download.

Good luck with the pig farming...

[Neon Rising Winter]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The protagonist could very easily have been Varric. He was, after all, the one telling the story, where the narrative of DA2 starts and ends. And Hawke could very well have been his antagonist: killing/driving insane his brother, costing him lots of time and resources, getting him involved in a crazy revolution he wants no part of and then, to top it off, three years after seeing the person who caused him all this misery, he gets abducted by Chantry Gestapo because of his association with said Hawke.

Hawke and Varric could be friends, but Varric could very well be the protagonist and, hence, Hawke the antagonist.

Or we could argue Varric is the protagonist of Act 1, with the story of the expedition and his brother betraying him. Isabela is the protagonist of Act 2, with the story of the consequences of her stealing the relic from the Qunari. Anders is the protagonist of Act 3, with the story of his finally confronting the Chantry. And in all cases the story is told from the viewpoint of the poor schmuck sidekick, Hawke.

I admit there's a few holes in this theory, but I'm sure it's nothing that couldn't be fixed with a spot of polyfilla and a coat of paint.

[rapscallioness]

Hawke feels more like the everyday person. Someone that's just trying to live and is constantly beset by the madness of their culture/civilization.

First the Blight. Then the Qunari. Then the mages/templr/chantry. Hawke spends the entire game just trying to survive. Even in the Legacy, the whole reason Hawke is there is cuz these crazy dwarves are trying to kill Hawke and possibly their sibling.

[TheJediSaint]

esper wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

snip

The protagonist could, be it wasn't.  Just as the protagonist of da:o could have easily been Alistair in which case it would have been an coming of age historie of accepting your responsibility or not. Da:o wasn't that story. The discussion of these are kinda pointless, since these two stories wasn't told. You can make good fanfiction of it, though. Narrative device flips are often funny.


The narrator =/= from protagonist.

Certainly not the narrator, I think it can be argued that the Progatgonist in DA:O was the viewpoint character, not only for their own story, but the stories of the characters around them.  

[esper]

rapscallioness wrote...

I think we're just obsessed with it as a template for story. Some modern artists may now consciously pull from it as a template, but we've been telling this same story unconsciously since the human species has been telling story.

It's a basic structure, but how we flesh it out is the difference.

I don't think the "Hero's Journey" is really one type of myth, as it is the prevailing similarities Campbell (amongst others) discerned between stories that ranged across culture and time.

Carl Jung noticed the same thing w/Archetypes within the human psyche.

I think the reason we keep telling the same story; keep replaying it over and over is because it is our story. We are the hero in it because we are the hero of our own life story.

And there is tragedy. The hero may make it out in the end, but the journey was full of tragedy and trial. Death.

Humans look to story to help us understand ourselves. The universal questions of existence. Who am I? Why am I here? What is this place? How does this work? Where am I going. What do I do? What is the meaning?

Story is powerful stuff. You're dabbling with the deepest recesses of the human psyche. Story is medicine, and in the wrong hands it is poison.

Story is a road map for the soul. It is how we learn and understand thru metaphor and symbol. A GPS device, if you will. That's why stories with happy endings are by far the most popular. Cuz ppl are essentially trying to figure how they can claw their way out of the pit. Or if it's even possible.

Our real lives and the struggles we go thru are "cliche". Just like the stories we see and hear being told, and their similarities, such is our story. Every story is fleshed out differently, but there are certain overriding themes.

But story is what can guide us. A GPS. Which is why I don't really care for the type of story that leads me to, and leaves me stranded in a bad neighborhood at 3 am. That's a lousy gps, imo.

But it's always gonna be abt obstacles; overcoming them; and growth because that is what this existence is about. this level of existence anyway. maybe in another time and place we will find new myths to turn into cliche. i have no doubt we will.

ugh, this is a jumbled post....

tldr: i don't think BW could stop w/the hero's journey myth if it wanted to. it's bigger than them. there's the anti hero, i guess. but even that seems to be the same structure. diff. motivation, but the same steps...

That is not a tragedy. A tragedy is the protagnist (who is often a hero) is brutally destroyed in every way possible. If they make it out in the end, it is only because death is a mercy and we can't really have that. Often there is not journey, neither metaphorical nor actually. There is only destruction and every word in the story is a part of the destruction-
The ancient greeks even added the insult that the reason for this often was 'because fate says so'. The hubris thing don't even hold. One particular hero tried to avoid hubris, by throwing away his most valuable possession. Fate couldn't have that. It was returned to him by 'coincedence', so he was forced to commit hubris and then forced to fall.


If you start using terms as anti-hero you have gone from discussing templates to discussing archetypes. Different tools.

The hero's journey is a subgenre off the epic. It can end tragic, but that does not make it a tragedy.

[Todd23]

It would mean trying something new... what could possibly go wrong?

[Annie89]

Hawke's story left me feeling cold. The best thing for me was the Legacy DLC and the whole deal with Corypheus and hints to the 1st Magisters. The rest of the game? I felt like I was playing a soap opera or doing pest control by killing crazy mages. At least it was funny.

What I liked about being a Warden was the way the journey felt. It felt like it mattered like you had to do it or else the world would fall. Hawke was a tool, like a spectator. Maybe he/she accelerated the events but they would've eventually happen. The hero's journey is too broad to ever escape it completely in all narratives but there is a lot of room to maneuver within this very loose structure.

On another note, I hope the new protagonist is addressed by his title and not by name. Being called Hawke all the time kinda set you into his persona and kept you there but a title is less restricting for role playing, I think. Anyone know any posts where this topic has come up?

[esper]

TheJediSaint wrote...

esper wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

snip

The protagonist could, be it wasn't.  Just as the protagonist of da:o could have easily been Alistair in which case it would have been an coming of age historie of accepting your responsibility or not. Da:o wasn't that story. The discussion of these are kinda pointless, since these two stories wasn't told. You can make good fanfiction of it, though. Narrative device flips are often funny.


The narrator =/= from protagonist.

Certainly not the narrator, I think it can be argued that the Progatgonist in DA:O was the viewpoint character, not only for their own story, but the stories of the characters around them.  

I have never, stated that Alistair was the narrator. I have stated that da:o could be Alistair's history, just as da2 could be Varric's history or Anders (that would have made a fine story too). But they are not. The protagonist is the warden for da:o and Hawke for da2-

And then I merely said that the narrator doesn't have to be the protagonist. Heck the point of view character doesn't have to be the protagonist. For the last point think White Knight, sort of... I still felt that the protagonist was more the point of view character than the player expy.

I can think of one game where the narrator and also the point of view character ends up proving themself to be the antagonist. (A good meaning antagonist). But that was a different genre. In the sequal to that game we have the protagonist being the big bad, but I am unsure wherever he is the antagonist of that game as there is a person who oppossed the protagonist much more clearly in the game and end up being the dragon for big bad of the series.  These games, however, belong to the mindtwist/mystery genre and involves plot devices such as time travel and thought transfer and mind control.

Edit. I also feel like mentioning that the two above mentioned games are as much more meta-stories, than anything else that wouldn't work well in any other medias than games as the game's mechanic, such as new game and in the second game even load are part of the story.

Modifié par esper, 15 janvier 2013 - 11:17 .

[Addai]

MissOuJ wrote...
Actually, DA2 doesn't conform to the Hero's Journey template - or not all of it, anyway.

It does if you realize that Anders is the main character of DA2, not Hawke.  Anti-hero, anyway.

I don't mind a heroic arc.  In fact I can't think of many other reasons why I'd want to play a video game.  Surely not to be a nobody.  It's all in the execution of it, really.  You're more likely to end up with a hamfisted mess trying to get away from familiar storylines as just embracing the archetypes and trying to give personalized twist to them.