136 réponses à ce sujet

[lil yonce]

I'd like to see a tragedy next time. The main character who believes he is good is actually the villian, causes the death of himself and of many others he cares for, and in the end the world is rid of his evil. Not original, but different.

[rapscallioness]

Yes, Esper I understand what a Tragedy is.

I was using the term in a lower case kinda way. As in there is tragedy in the story. I wasn't referring to the hero's journey being a "T"ragedy.

But, specifically, what are some other types of story template you would personally like to see BW implement?

Besides tragedy, which I'm assuming you'd like to see?

edit: That's even moreso a question for the OP.  Sincerely, I would like to know. I'm not being snarky. I'm curious abt. this stuff.

Modifié par rapscallioness, 15 janvier 2013 - 11:38 .

[Captain Cornhole]

Wulfram wrote...

Looking at the wikipedia article, I think it's a shame we don't tend to really see the "Return" part of the hero's journey.

I mean, the "Departure" part fits pretty strongly and the "Initiation" part fits tolerably, partly because it's drawn pretty generically. But the "Return" really doesn't fit with any Bioware game that I can see.

Well for Bioware games what I mean by that is the finale. What Bioware is good as is articulating various themes and messages in their stories. One thematic you can take out from ME3's ending is fatalism, no matter your choices you still get the colors of the rainbow. Now for a game all about "choice" I think bioware should have pushed the "choice element or fatalism element" more for it to create a better thematic ending for ME3.  That said a thematic "return" at the end of a game would be something I would like to see more often.

[Captain Cornhole]

nightscrawl wrote...

Therein lies the problem. Rock, hard place. What exactly are they supposed to do about it?

In the case of Dragon Age 2, I primarly enjoyed it for the story. So for me that was enough to overlook what ever gameplay or mechanical shortcomings the game had. But was great about it was that is was new. I didn't fit any template for any prior bioware games. And even though there are certainly elements of the "Hero's Journey" that do indeed exist in Dragon Age 2, the story and plot structure did not reflect the Cambellian diagram in my OP. Another thing great about Dragon Age 2 was how it broke away from the typical 3 act story. 

Here is the thing, the Hero's Journey isn't a bad thing. What is a bad thing is writers using it as a template for storytelling, cut and paste if you will. And I think DA2 should get more praise from breaking away from that,

[Captain Cornhole]

OdanUrr wrote...

Would you also recommend writers to abstain from writing books following the "Hero's Journey" template because there are plenty already?

I don't think your should write to fit a template. When writing you should try to be creative. Creative writing can fall into many number of forms you could be trying to tell an epic story, or make a political or thematic statement. Along with those come various conventions to help make your work stand out.

Although personally I think it is best to avoid tired cliches and tropes to improve your writing. I do think a writer should ultimately try to tell the story they want to tell.

Bottom line is you could probably find elements of the "Hero's Journey" in all forms of media and literature. It is natural and really can't be avoided. What should be avoided is tying to fit your storying into an existing template.

[ISpeakTheTruth]

I think Bioware did a great job of making the Warden a very neutral character and gave you the ability to direct his/her morality. Sure the Warden had to defeat the Blight.... but if they didn't they'd die and unless your character is suicidal everyone would want to defeat the Blight.

I felt DA2 Hawke was intentionally made neutral and that you really couldn't change that character because the character had to be that neutral character that either the mages or templars would listen to so you were never given the ability to tell both sides to go shove it. Never given the chance to just say "Screw you guys I'm going home." Then sail back to Ferelden.

Hopefully DAI gives you the neutral character that we can shape rather than being handed a pre-made character that has to be seen this way or that by the end of the story.

[RaenImrahl]

Ah... a fascinating discussion.  This is of particular interest to me, as I am in the midst of doing a thesis for my masters degree in communication examining the use of myth, including Campbell's Hero's Journey, in relation to a female heroic character in a popular animated TV series.  A few observations/comments...

Swagger7 wrote...

The Hero's Journey is one of those vague templates you can fit just about anything into. In other words, fairly useless.

If viewed as merely a template, then yes, I agree. You can apply it to almost anything if you do so only superficially. My epic journey to pick up my dry cleaning today, etc. But the point is that the Hero's Journey is *not* a template... although, as shown below, media producers have embraced it as such.

Captain Cornhole wrote...
What is maddening though is everyone seems to only remember the book for this damn illustration, the template of the Hero's Journey.

I would agree with this, in that most people look at the Hero's Journey, or more accurately, what Campbell called "The Monomyth", as a story template. In truth, it was a way to explain the similarities between stories found across cultures and throughout antiquity, based on the idea that all humans share the same psychological predilections. Other scholars, such as Claude Levi-Strauss, come to similar conclusions from a more structuralist, and less psychological (or Jungian) perspective. The monomyth as Campbell presents it is not a template but an explanation for why so many mythic stories seem to follow the same pattern. It explains the *result*, not the process.

LinksOcarina wrote...
Anyone think were all too cynical because were so exposed to these tropes and cliches of storytelling because of the mass media now a days?

A very good observation. Several years ago, a script editor for Disney named Christopher Vogler wrote a memo relating the Monomyth/Hero's Journey to modern, western dramatic story structure. This was embraced (or obsessed over) by Hollywood, and resulted in the resurgence of Disney animated features, including The Lion King and Aladdin.

Vogler eventually published this in a book called "The Writer's Journey", which is in its 3rd edition now. More at http://www.thewritersjourney.com/

Emzamination wrote...

I never understood why I must be a hero. You can go through Da:o, Da2, me1, me2 as aggressive as you please, and still end up coming out the hero. Hate that.

What makes a hero versus a villain? Two big things, and neither of them really have to do with violence.

First, it is through the hero that we identify with a character. All heroes, if you follow the reasoning of scholars like Kenneth Burke, are a fusion of the ordinary and the extraordinary. In early Greek mythology, heroes were literally the offspring of a mortal and a god. Burke argues that we identify with heroes through their human side, and we rejoice in them because this connects us to the godly/the extraordinary. In modern times and in the real world, we identify with the hero who has everyday roots but achieves great things. Consider: Ever notice in TV coverage of the Olympics, how much "biography" we see of athletes, and how media tries to make these extraordinary physical champions more "human"?

Second, the hero must be working towards some social good. In the "return" phase of the monomyth, the hero comes back to the real world (either figuratively or literally) and delivers a "boon"... this can be a tangible object but is more likely a state of being or a new freedom from some threat. So Luke blows up the Death Star (freedom from tyranny), the Warden slays the archdemon (freedom from fear/death/destruction), Hawke defeats the ancient power that consumes Meredith (ditto), Shepherd stops the Reapers (ditto again).

Oftentimes, the hero has to take up arms to achieve this.

There is, of course, a whole other way that myth functions, as a short of symbolic shorthand, but that's another long post....

One final thought:

Captain Cornhole wrote...
Here is the thing, the Hero's
Journey isn't a bad thing. What is a bad thing is writers using it as a
template for storytelling, cut and paste if you will. And I think DA2
should get more praise from breaking away from that,

I think DA:O followed the monomyth/hero's journey very closely and was a more satisfying story than DA2.  I also would argue that DA2 does indeed fall into the Hero's Journey, thematically...  but with its a narrative structure, it takes a different path... the use of frame narrative and the big skips in time... which I think *is* underappreciated.

Consider the movie "Pulp Fiction"... if you were to cut that movie and re-edit it so that we see the events chronologically... you'd actually find a pretty good representation of the Monomyth... with Jules and Vincent serving as one hybrid hero.  The dual-hero dies, and the "rightous" half is resurrected in the form of the redeemed Jules.

Modifié par RaenImrahl, 16 janvier 2013 - 06:32 .

[esper]

Addai67 wrote...

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.

Sigh... Anders is not the main characther or protagonist. Hawke  is. Someone endig up being more active and taking a more important decision does not a main character/ protagonist make.

Espically in rpgs, where the protagonist is mostly kept away from any action too extreme that must happen. That is the weakness off our genre.

[Addai]

esper wrote...

Sigh... Anders is not the main characther or protagonist. Hawke  is. Someone endig up being more active and taking a more important decision does not a main character/ protagonist make.

I'm not going to argue it, because who really cares, but I think it's obvious that Anders is the main character.  His actions drive the plot.  Hawke's are incidental.

[esper]

Addai67 wrote...

esper wrote...

Sigh... Anders is not the main characther or protagonist. Hawke  is. Someone endig up being more active and taking a more important decision does not a main character/ protagonist make.

I'm not going to argue it, because who really cares, but I think it's obvious that Anders is the main character.  His actions drive the plot.  Hawke's are incidental.

That is not and have never been the defenition of a main characther/protagonist. If it was the every antagonist would be the main character. Espicially in fantasy were the protagonist often end up doing very little worth of notices compared to the antagonist and villains.

Besides his action does not drive the plot. It forces the ending. Anders function as a plot device (i don't remember the english term), he is the catalyst that forces the protagonist to take action, but he is not and never will be the protagonist of da2.

[AlexanderCousland]

The problem (or beauty) of Hawke is that nobody can say who he is. The Champion, the codex tells us the title is honorary, but holds no lands and command' s not forces and Is not subject to noble lineage. Hawke turn' s my experience off because he has no purpose, no goals, no duty, no function. He feel' s like he is just there wasting space aimlessly waiting for something to happen. It' s very odd, most people that like this story have something in common.

I feel like I know Merrill, Isabela, Aveline, Anders, Fenris, Carver/Bethany, and Sebastian better then I know Hawke.....Can anybody tell me why?

[CrystaJ]

It might be as simple as the fact that you couldn't have pointy ears turned you off from the get-go.

It might be that the Warden's vacant stare and lack of a voice forced you to use your imagination and apply traits to them that you like, that you may not have been capable of doing as well with a protagonist with a voice of their own.

Or it might be that you prefer tangible action (i.e marching forward and killing the big bad) over the introspection that may allow you to empathize with Hawke's situation and motivations. DA II's big bad is pretty much Kirkwall itself, really, plus the Qunari (who seem to come to this conclusion much quicker than you do, ironically enough).

Or it could be something else entirely. It's not like we know how you think. I could tell you that I don't think the same way, apparently.

Modifié par CrystaJ, 16 janvier 2013 - 10:07 .

[Jonata]

RaenImrahl wrote...
Ah... a fascinating discussion.  This is of particular interest to me, as I am in the midst of doing a thesis for my masters degree in communication examining the use of myth, including Campbell's Hero's Journey, in relation to a female heroic character in a popular animated TV series.  A few observations/comments...

Oh please, please tell me you're doing a master thesis about Kim Possible. 

 

I think DA:O followed the monomyth/hero's journey very closely and was a more satisfying story than DA2.  I also would argue that DA2 does indeed fall into the Hero's Journey, thematically...  but with its a narrative structure, it takes a different path... the use of frame narrative and the big skips in time... which I think *is* underappreciated.

This is important: my position has always been that you don't have to break the rules to make something outstanding. In fact, many of the best narrative works out there do follow some of the most recognized clichés or rules. With enough knowledge and talent, my opinion is that you can make those very clichés shine above any other poorly executed "groundbreaking" idea.

Youth4Ever wrote...

I'd like to see a tragedy next time. The main character who believes he is good is actually the villian, causes the death of himself and of many others he cares for, and in the end the world is rid of his evil. Not original, but different.

So, basically the Darth Vader story minus Luke? I would gladly be in for that, but the only way to put it in the game would be through a final moment twist and after ME3 I think that BioWare fans are becoming pretty touchy on the subject. 

There will probably be a lot of bickering on these boards with a final twist like that, but after all there is always a lot of bickering on these boards. 

That being said, I would rather prefer to return to a "grey" logic, like we had in Dragon Age: Origins. The main character had definitely some kind of heroic task (defeat the blight, unite different races against a common threat) but the execution could be rather evil from time to time (making the Werewolves kill the Dalish, for example). The Grey Warden could be rewarded as a hero, but with the right choices he/she could be nothing more than a true, masterfully evil character who used the Blight as a chance to gain power. 

Modifié par Jonata, 16 janvier 2013 - 10:43 .

[CrystaJ]

You can be masterfully evil, slaughter your companions after they rebel when you make decisions they object to, and no one really seems to give a ****. Ramifications are ultimately next to nil when all is said and done.

And it's pretty much the same with DA 2 (you certainly can make some dickish decisions, like making Feynriel tranquil for the lulz, letting Anders kill that mage chick, taking the gold from the urchin for Athenril, or having Meredith murder your sister), but it's like... different... somehow.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Captain Cornhole wrote...

Now I wouldn't agree with everything on here, but it does bring up some valid criticism. Your character starts from humble origins, something goes wrong and you are called to be something greater, you encounter companions and have various mentors, and you go through various trials before wrapping things up for the return.

Soo... exactly how would you do it differently?

A game where the player doesn't have any companions?

A game where nothing goes wrong, so there's nothing for the player to do really?

A game wher there are no trials/challenges? So I just walk to the end of the story unoppossed?

[Khayness]

Captain Cornhole wrote...

Here is the thing, the Hero's Journey isn't a bad thing. What is a bad thing is writers using it as a template for storytelling, cut and paste if you will. And I think DA2 should get more praise from breaking away from that,

Just because it tried to do something different is not enough to be praised by itself.

Dragon Age 2's rushed Act III makes it all fall apart, it is an iron fisted railroading sequence which slams you into a sequel hook, with stupid characters making stupid decisions (hi Grace) and you are just there to watch it all go downhill.

There is no resolution, you achieved nothing. You don't have to use the template to do that.

[Iraea]

I would like to bring in another game:
one thing I liked very much about KOTOR2 (yes, I know: Obsidian, not BW) was hat The Exile from the beginning had a history that was unknown to the player. And not that your PC was suffering from loss of memory - the Exile was fully aware of the events that happened.
So, the puppet knew more than the puppeteer.
That gave the (otherwise rather conventional) development/journey 'Incompentent to Awesome' a nice touch because you additionally had to put together all the little pieces about your person and history from conversations - which made dialogues quite interesting and challenging.
And then you find out that all the information you interpreted and what your character was thinking about prior events was wrong and there was so much more behind. This added to the epic that evolved and gave some very nasty twists.
I found that a nice change from the usual 'cliche chart'.

Modifié par Iraea, 16 janvier 2013 - 12:46 .

[Sidney]

Addai67 wrote...

esper wrote...

Sigh... Anders is not the main characther or protagonist. Hawke  is. Someone endig up being more active and taking a more important decision does not a main character/ protagonist make.

I'm not going to argue it, because who really cares, but I think it's obvious that Anders is the main character.  His actions drive the plot.  Hawke's are incidental.

Hawke puts Anders in position to be able to do what he does. Hardly incidental. Plus, you can argue in almost every story that the villain is the "main actor" and the hero is reactive to what he does. It is why in so many cases the villain is the better character.

DA2's sin in terms of story telling is not that Hawke is incidental but that is is not the only person who matters in the world.  People here mouth platitudes about immersion but they want a great dead world where the entire world is on hold pending their arrival of their character.

[Wulfram]

Sidney wrote...

Hawke puts Anders in position to be able to do what he does.

No, Anders does what he does even if Hawke tells him to go away in Act 2.  Or just plain ignores him after getting the map.

[dragonflight288]

RaenImrahl wrote...

Ah... a fascinating discussion.  This is of particular interest to me, as I am in the midst of doing a thesis for my masters degree in communication examining the use of myth, including Campbell's Hero's Journey, in relation to a female heroic character in a popular animated TV series.  A few observations/comments...

Swagger7 wrote...

The Hero's Journey is one of those vague templates you can fit just about anything into. In other words, fairly useless.

If viewed as merely a template, then yes, I agree. You can apply it to almost anything if you do so only superficially. My epic journey to pick up my dry cleaning today, etc. But the point is that the Hero's Journey is *not* a template... although, as shown below, media producers have embraced it as such.

Captain Cornhole wrote...
What is maddening though is everyone seems to only remember the book for this damn illustration, the template of the Hero's Journey.

I would agree with this, in that most people look at the Hero's Journey, or more accurately, what Campbell called "The Monomyth", as a story template. In truth, it was a way to explain the similarities between stories found across cultures and throughout antiquity, based on the idea that all humans share the same psychological predilections. Other scholars, such as Claude Levi-Strauss, come to similar conclusions from a more structuralist, and less psychological (or Jungian) perspective. The monomyth as Campbell presents it is not a template but an explanation for why so many mythic stories seem to follow the same pattern. It explains the *result*, not the process.

LinksOcarina wrote...
Anyone think were all too cynical because were so exposed to these tropes and cliches of storytelling because of the mass media now a days?

A very good observation. Several years ago, a script editor for Disney named Christopher Vogler wrote a memo relating the Monomyth/Hero's Journey to modern, western dramatic story structure. This was embraced (or obsessed over) by Hollywood, and resulted in the resurgence of Disney animated features, including The Lion King and Aladdin.

Vogler eventually published this in a book called "The Writer's Journey", which is in its 3rd edition now. More at http://www.thewritersjourney.com/

Emzamination wrote...

I never understood why I must be a hero. You can go through Da:o, Da2, me1, me2 as aggressive as you please, and still end up coming out the hero. Hate that.

What makes a hero versus a villain? Two big things, and neither of them really have to do with violence.

First, it is through the hero that we identify with a character. All heroes, if you follow the reasoning of scholars like Kenneth Burke, are a fusion of the ordinary and the extraordinary. In early Greek mythology, heroes were literally the offspring of a mortal and a god. Burke argues that we identify with heroes through their human side, and we rejoice in them because this connects us to the godly/the extraordinary. In modern times and in the real world, we identify with the hero who has everyday roots but achieves great things. Consider: Ever notice in TV coverage of the Olympics, how much "biography" we see of athletes, and how media tries to make these extraordinary physical champions more "human"?

Second, the hero must be working towards some social good. In the "return" phase of the monomyth, the hero comes back to the real world (either figuratively or literally) and delivers a "boon"... this can be a tangible object but is more likely a state of being or a new freedom from some threat. So Luke blows up the Death Star (freedom from tyranny), the Warden slays the archdemon (freedom from fear/death/destruction), Hawke defeats the ancient power that consumes Meredith (ditto), Shepherd stops the Reapers (ditto again).

Oftentimes, the hero has to take up arms to achieve this.

There is, of course, a whole other way that myth functions, as a short of symbolic shorthand, but that's another long post....

One final thought:

Captain Cornhole wrote...
Here is the thing, the Hero's
Journey isn't a bad thing. What is a bad thing is writers using it as a
template for storytelling, cut and paste if you will. And I think DA2
should get more praise from breaking away from that,

I think DA:O followed the monomyth/hero's journey very closely and was a more satisfying story than DA2.  I also would argue that DA2 does indeed fall into the Hero's Journey, thematically...  but with its a narrative structure, it takes a different path... the use of frame narrative and the big skips in time... which I think *is* underappreciated.

Consider the movie "Pulp Fiction"... if you were to cut that movie and re-edit it so that we see the events chronologically... you'd actually find a pretty good representation of the Monomyth... with Jules and Vincent serving as one hybrid hero.  The dual-hero dies, and the "rightous" half is resurrected in the form of the redeemed Jules.

Very nice post. Good luck with your thesis.

[esper]

Sidney wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

esper wrote...

Sigh... Anders is not the main characther or protagonist. Hawke  is. Someone endig up being more active and taking a more important decision does not a main character/ protagonist make.

I'm not going to argue it, because who really cares, but I think it's obvious that Anders is the main character.  His actions drive the plot.  Hawke's are incidental.

Hawke puts Anders in position to be able to do what he does. Hardly incidental. Plus, you can argue in almost every story that the villain is the "main actor" and the hero is reactive to what he does. It is why in so many cases the villain is the better character.

DA2's sin in terms of story telling is not that Hawke is incidental but that is is not the only person who matters in the world.  People here mouth platitudes about immersion but they want a great dead world where the entire world is on hold pending their arrival of their character.

All this still does not make him the main characther nor the protagonist. Which is what I am discussing. I don't care about whose action has the most world effect. It is irrellavant. I simply want people to use the term correctly. Anders is indeed a important actor, but he is not and never will be the main character, nor is he the protagonist. I was simply pointing out the most obvious reason as to why it is not the actor who is the protagonist.

Da2 story is about the human behind the legand of the Champion of Kirkwall. That human is Hawke, which, do to the nature of the narrative, makes Hawke the only valid option for protagonist.

Even if you think that the story ends up revealing that Hawke was a passive idiot who did nothing, it does not remove Hawke's status as the main protagonist. Since the very nature of the story is: Who was the champion really.

[Captain Cornhole]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Soo... exactly how would you do it differently?

A game where the player doesn't have any companions?

A game where nothing goes wrong, so there's nothing for the player to do really?

A game wher there are no trials/challenges? So I just walk to the end of the story unoppossed?

What would I do differently? That all depends on the story I'm wanting to tell. I'm just saying to mix it up a little bit.