1331 réponses à ce sujet

[GreyLycanTrope]

David7204 wrote...

No. That's ridiculous.

Mass Effect is not about Jacob. No amount of perspective can make it about Jacob. And thus having Jacob show up and save everything at the climax for some reason is absurd.

Who said anything about Jacob? We're talking about active companions and teammates who should be with you. Neither the Arch demon nor Merideth were fought by the protaganist themselves. Merideth practically gets swamp by the amount of allies you have (which I'd point out extend beyond your party.)

David7204 wrote...

If the protagonist is not the character who faces the climax of the story, he shouldn't be the protagonist.

Doesn't have to face it alone.

[The Flying Grey Warden]

David7204 wrote...

You're not using logic, Entropy. Even if the player character was 'not the center of the story' (which is very shoddy to begin with and not something I want to go into), that doesn't mean that Mr. Least-liked-companion is any more the center.

If some random peasant the player had never seen before came out of nowhere and did something that changed the entire course the of conflict at the climax, that would be very unwelcome. This is really no different. If the story is about Peasent #1425, it should be about Peasent #1425 consistently and not suddenly shine a light on him at the climax. Likewise, if the story is about Javik or EDI (which it would be by giving them such an essential role at the most important moment), it needs to be about them consistently. It's very thematically inappropriate to have such huge shifts at the climax.

1. Random turns and twist are a-okay with me as long as they make logical sense. A peasent sneaking up to a diplomat in a crowd and assassinating them, that can fit in the story. A giant pink squid coming from the sky out of nowhere and eating the diplomat, wouldn't, and would cause a problem.

2. Nothing says we need to consistently, or even sporadically, focus on anyone all the time. We could just focus on the setting, and have the characters be the set pieces instead, and still have a good story. Or more idealy, have the setting play as big a role as the characters themselves and be a character in it's own right.

3. Thematically inappropriate is only something a personal can personally feel, imo. While you may feel a shift in climax is ininappropriate, others might not. Equally, deciding what the climax even is, and who the key parts of that climax are, can be just as subjective.

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I think you can take an absolutist approach to the law, which is the judicial system that governs human interactions. But I'm not sure you can apply the same logic to morality in general.

There are loopholes to laws, by their very nature. Assuming a strict moral approach prevents anarchy as you say, yes... but it also allows an almost legalist approach to doing things that harm others or creates other problems, but which people can clearly say "this is moral and right, so I can keep on doing it."

It's not something I've developed thoroughly, but I'm very intrigued by Kantian ethics. The "why" is just as important as the "what" or the "how."

I don't disagree, but that's a really big problem if you are trying to adhere to a system of ethics or morals.

Saying "never do something in anger" may seem like it would prevent violence and murder if everyone adhered to it, but there is a rather obvious loophole that you could pay another person to dispassionatlely kill your adversary. No anger, but still violence and all the negative consequences.

Saying "never bring harm to someone else," on the other hand, is so nebulous that it makes everyone immoral. Your inaction may be bringing harm right now. Somewhere, a house is buring that you aren't helping put out. Or you using your computer right now is consuming energy and costing money... money and energy that could be instead used to clothe the poor or feed the hungry.

Saying "always be generous" is similarly doomed, since you would have to be generous... ALWAYS. Even to the point of destiution. Even to the point of gifitng to those who don't have your same morals or your best interests in mind. 

You may notice I used "always" and "never" in those examples. Because that's the flaw - if you say "this is how morality works" then it is pretty much unconditional. You can do that with laws, but it is really hard to do with morality. Even MORESO when you look at not WHAT people are doing, but WHY they are doing it. "I killed someone, but they 'why' was that I was hungry and wanted to steal their money to buy food" or "I killed them because they killed my friend" or even the often used (legally) "I killed them because they would have killed me."

The "why" of something is very much a legalist discussion. Mostly because it allows for actions that would otherwise be deemed illegal. But morals? Morals are for internal guidance only. There are no consequences for not being able to prove you were morally right... at least not clearly defined ones (you have obvious personal feelings as well as public perception, but these aren't really predictable to a strong measure). 

To me, morals have to work in a general framework but interpretted on a case-by-case basis. Because otherwise, it opens itself up to countless justifications, illogical culminations and, overall, twisted morals. Look at nearly every villain in a story who thought their actions were for the greater good. That's the result of a highly structured morality system that has built itself into total immorality to everyone but the user of that system.

[David7204]

That is simply untrue.

No matter how the developers say "This is story isn't about the PC" or whatever, it doesn't make it so. Characters carry and represent themes. That direction is always there.

There's no such thing as a story without focus on the characters. The very idea is a complete contradiction.

[DeinonSlayer]

Greylycantrope wrote...

David7204 wrote...

It's not. Not at all. That's not the issue. The issue is a character being placed at the thematic center of the story when it's not appropriate. And being the player's least liked squadmate sure as hell does not make it appropriate.

I love EDI. But when someone made a suggestion that EDI is there to speak to Shepard for the final choice, I said no. Regardless of how much I like her, it gives her too much thematic weight.

That's only the case if you soley believe the protaganist is all there is to the story, not everyone will draw that same conclusion looking at the narrative. Mass Effect can be just as easily about anything else depending on perspective say synthetics and organics, or unity and teamwork and in both these cases EDI could be very appropriate to make her the thematic center.

Loghain's sacrifice at the end of DA:O can play much the same role, the Grey Warden was certainly instrumental in uniting the various factions but s/he's not fighting alone at the end, not by a long shot, hell you can even summon allied armies to help you fight both the mooks and the final boss. The spot light doesn't always have to be glued to the protaganist, and indeed it's not in DA:O we get scene specifically depicting Loghain's actions entirely devoid of whatever the Warden is doing at the moment, whether it's his decion to retreat from Ostagar or him addressing the landsmeet afterwards.

In the final boss fight of the Return to Ostagar DLC, my Warden got grabbed by the Risen Ogre (the one that killed Cailan in the beginning after Loghain abandoned him; the one that Duncan brought down). It was going to do that thing where it holds you in one hand and punches you with the other over and over. My warden was already almost dead.

As soon as the Ogre grabbed me, Loghain leapt up and planted his sword into its chest, bearing it to the ground where he withdrew his sword and stabbed it again straight between the eyes.

I swear I did NOT arrange that. I was left gaping at the screen - thinking, in the immortal words of Burt Gummer, "what kind of supreme being would condone such irony?" Though unscripted, I thought it a great "perspective" moment. Makes it that much harder to kill Loghain in subsequent playthroughs.

Thought it was vaguely relevant to the topic at hand. Felt like sharing. Carry on.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 01 novembre 2013 - 11:19 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Just because you know the theme or main drive doesn't necessarily mean you should dismiss the way it is presented or handled. Just because someone is pro-mage doesn't mean that you know all you need to know. Someone who is pro-mage because he was born a mage and lived in the circle is very different from someone who is pro-mage because he's been possessed and then de-possessed and believes he can cleanse all mages from attracting demons in the fade once and for all, who is very different from someone who is a former templar that discovers he had magical powers himself and had to decide for himself what it really was all about. Context matters in how interesting a character is. At least, it does to me.

I agree, which is why I was saying that the mother should be shipped off to Vegas in order to shake up her "mother bear" status.  I never see anything like this happen with either Anders or Fenris.  They are diametric opposites that represent the poles of the debate.  I already know what the poles are.  I don't need them to teach me.  What I *do* need is characters that teach me about the nuances in the middle and how this debate overlaps with other debates I care more about. 

I disagree. I thought that Fenris brought a distinctly different anti-mage sentiment than a templar would. In that, I actually rather enjoyed the banters he and Sebastian had, because Fenris's dislike of mages was entirely rooted in the practical, and not dogmatic, or chantry-based. His fear of magic was rooted in the fact that he was a victim of mages and seen the sort of cruelty that unchecked an mage-dominated society could unleash on innocents firsthand. I found that very interesting, because the templar viewpoint was much more dogmatic - mostly following the chant of light, and dependent on what mages who turn to abominations could do as well. In that, I actually also liked Meredith's motivations. She was the quintessential templar, and I wish that the devs had made that motivation clearer (and earlier!) to the audience.

If you disliked them, that's fine. I respect your opinion, even if I disagree. I wasn't as big a fan of Anders, but it wasn't because he wasn't nuanced, it was because I found him to be the sort of person I actually dislike.

[Fast Jimmy]

David7204 wrote...

That is simply untrue.

No matter how the developers say "This is story isn't about the PC" or whatever, it doesn't make it so. Characters carry and represent themes. That direction is always there.

There's no such thing as a story without focus on the characters. The very idea is a complete contradiction.

Always is a terrible word to use, David. Always.

[dreamgazer]

David7204 wrote...

If the protagonist is not the character who faces the climax of the story, he shouldn't be the protagonist.

I wish you understood how much you continue to shoot yourself in the foot with comments like these, David.

[Fast Jimmy]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

David7204 wrote...

It's not. Not at all. That's not the issue. The issue is a character being placed at the thematic center of the story when it's not appropriate. And being the player's least liked squadmate sure as hell does not make it appropriate.

I love EDI. But when someone made a suggestion that EDI is there to speak to Shepard for the final choice, I said no. Regardless of how much I like her, it gives her too much thematic weight.

That's only the case if you soley believe the protaganist is all there is to the story, not everyone will draw that same conclusion looking at the narrative. Mass Effect can be just as easily about anything else depending on perspective say synthetics and organics, or unity and teamwork and in both these cases EDI could be very appropriate to make her the thematic center.

Loghain's sacrifice at the end of DA:O can play much the same role, the Grey Warden was certainly instrumental in uniting the various factions but s/he's not fighting alone at the end, not by a long shot, hell you can even summon allied armies to help you fight both the mooks and the final boss. The spot light doesn't always have to be glued to the protaganist, and indeed it's not in DA:O we get scene specifically depicting Loghain's actions entirely devoid of whatever the Warden is doing at the moment, whether it's his decion to retreat from Ostagar or him addressing the landsmeet afterwards.

In the final boss fight of the Return to Ostagar DLC, my Warden got grabbed by the Risen Ogre (the one that killed Cailan in the beginning, the one that Duncan brought down). It was going to do that thing where it holds you in one hand and punches you with the other over and over.

As soon as the Ogre grabbed me, Loghain leapt up and planted his sword into its ches, bearing it to the ground where he withdrew his sword and stabbed it again straight between the eyes.

I swear I did NOT arrange that. I was left gaping at the screen - thinking, in the immortal words of Burt Gummer, "what kind of supreme being would condone such irony?" Though unscripted, I thought it a great "perspective" moment. Makes it that much harder to kill Loghain in subsequent playthroughs.

Thought it was vaguely relevant to the topic at hand. Felt like sharing. Carry on.

Ha! That's one of the best examples of emergent gameplay through the use of finishing moves animations I've ever heard of. You didn't by chance capture that in video form, did you?

[David7204]

dreamgazer wrote...

David7204 wrote...

If the protagonist is not the character who faces the climax of the story, he shouldn't be the protagonist.

I wish you understood how much you continue to shoot yourself in the foot with comments like these, David.

If you have something to say against it, by all means, say it.

[DeinonSlayer]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

David7204 wrote...

It's not. Not at all. That's not the issue. The issue is a character being placed at the thematic center of the story when it's not appropriate. And being the player's least liked squadmate sure as hell does not make it appropriate.

I love EDI. But when someone made a suggestion that EDI is there to speak to Shepard for the final choice, I said no. Regardless of how much I like her, it gives her too much thematic weight.

That's only the case if you soley believe the protaganist is all there is to the story, not everyone will draw that same conclusion looking at the narrative. Mass Effect can be just as easily about anything else depending on perspective say synthetics and organics, or unity and teamwork and in both these cases EDI could be very appropriate to make her the thematic center.

Loghain's sacrifice at the end of DA:O can play much the same role, the Grey Warden was certainly instrumental in uniting the various factions but s/he's not fighting alone at the end, not by a long shot, hell you can even summon allied armies to help you fight both the mooks and the final boss. The spot light doesn't always have to be glued to the protaganist, and indeed it's not in DA:O we get scene specifically depicting Loghain's actions entirely devoid of whatever the Warden is doing at the moment, whether it's his decion to retreat from Ostagar or him addressing the landsmeet afterwards.

In the final boss fight of the Return to Ostagar DLC, my Warden got grabbed by the Risen Ogre (the one that killed Cailan in the beginning, the one that Duncan brought down). It was going to do that thing where it holds you in one hand and punches you with the other over and over.

As soon as the Ogre grabbed me, Loghain leapt up and planted his sword into its ches, bearing it to the ground where he withdrew his sword and stabbed it again straight between the eyes.

I swear I did NOT arrange that. I was left gaping at the screen - thinking, in the immortal words of Burt Gummer, "what kind of supreme being would condone such irony?" Though unscripted, I thought it a great "perspective" moment. Makes it that much harder to kill Loghain in subsequent playthroughs.

Thought it was vaguely relevant to the topic at hand. Felt like sharing. Carry on.

Ha! That's one of the best examples of emergent gameplay through the use of finishing moves animations I've ever heard of. You didn't by chance capture that in video form, did you?

I only wish I had. I did get a good number of Steam screenshots, though - I'd never seen that particular finishing move animation before, so it was a huge shock when it happened.

EDIT: *checks* By "good number," I meant three, none of which show my Warden in its hand. It just happened too fast. I can post it if anyone cares.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 01 novembre 2013 - 11:34 .

[dreamgazer]

David7204 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

David7204 wrote...

If the protagonist is not the character who faces the climax of the story, he shouldn't be the protagonist.

I wish you understood how much you continue to shoot yourself in the foot with comments like these, David.

If you have something to say against it, by all means, say it.

Not until you've played Dragon Age: Origins and have a grasp on what you're talking about. 

It's time to inform your opinion, sir. 

[GreyLycanTrope]

DeinonSlayer wrote...
In the final boss fight of the Return to Ostagar DLC, my Warden got grabbed by the Risen Ogre (the one that killed Cailan in the beginning after Loghain abandoned him; the one that Duncan brought down). It was going to do that thing where it holds you in one hand and punches you with the other over and over. My warden was already almost dead.

As soon as the Ogre grabbed me, Loghain leapt up and planted his sword into its ches, bearing it to the ground where he withdrew his sword and stabbed it again straight between the eyes.

I swear I did NOT arrange that. I was left gaping at the screen - thinking, in the immortal words of Burt Gummer, "what kind of supreme being would condone such irony?" Though unscripted, I thought it a great "perspective" moment. Makes it that much harder to kill Loghain in subsequent playthroughs.

Thought it was vaguely relevant to the topic at hand. Felt like sharing. Carry on.

 That is bloody brilliant.

David7204 wrote...

That is simply untrue.

No
matter how the developers say "This is story isn't about the PC" or
whatever, it doesn't make it so. Characters carry and represent themes.
That direction is always there.

There's no such thing as a story without focus on the characters. The very idea is a complete contradiction.

There's a difference between no focus on characters and focusing on various characters, but I've already said my piece on that.

Play the game David, I think you'll be suprised how many times your companions can steal the kill animation when fighting a dragon.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 01 novembre 2013 - 11:22 .

[David7204]

I have no idea what "the this 'focus' is in fact the story" means. Why don't you be a little more clear?

Modifié par David7204, 01 novembre 2013 - 11:22 .

[The Flying Grey Warden]

David7204 wrote...

That is simply untrue.

No matter how the developers say "This is story isn't about the PC" or whatever, it doesn't make it so. Characters carry and represent themes. That direction is always there.

There's no such thing as a story without focus on the characters. The very idea is a complete contradiction.

You say that as if a story is nothinb but a collection of themes, championed by set in stone characters, to be ended when the themes have finished being deposited.

Characters can be a minor part of a story, especially one in a setting that has such a long history and vast space as thedas's. Nothing says they are the be all and end all of a series except those who are overly attached to them.

Dragon age origin had you able to be 6 different characters, and each of their stories still play out even if you didn't pick them. They end badly if you don't pick them, but they still happen none-the-less.

Modifié par The Flying Grey Warden, 01 novembre 2013 - 11:29 .

[David7204]

You do not spend 50 hours telling a story about a group of characters and then, at the climax, have a bunch of either minor characters or characters the player has never seen before at all come in and solve everything while the player character and party stands by and does nothing. Are people seriously trying to defend such a thing as good writing?

[David7204]

The Flying Grey Warden wrote...

David7204 wrote...

That is simply untrue.

No matter how the developers say "This is story isn't about the PC" or whatever, it doesn't make it so. Characters carry and represent themes. That direction is always there.

There's no such thing as a story without focus on the characters. The very idea is a complete contradiction.

Characters can be a minor part of a story, especially one in a setting that has such a long history as thedas's. Nothing says they are the be all and end all of a series except those who are overly attached to them.

Narrative Causality does say that. Exactly that.

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I understand. I particularly agree on the "do no harm" part.

I disagree about "why," though. I think "why" has the ability to invalidate seemingly good actions. For instance, I'm not inclined to think highly of someone who does community service simply because it looks good on a resume (as is the case with someone I know).

As I said, it's not something I've spent very much time on yet.

I would hate to think I discouraged anyone from thinking about their own morality or how they'd want to execute it, but just trying to give some food for thought.

And the "why" of something is absolutely important. In many cases, paramount. I agree that the "right" actions for impure reasons shouldn't be inherently admired, just as the "wrong" actions for perfectly justifiable reasons may be for the greater good. But the "why's" often vary so much on a case by case basis, it is, in my opinion, folly to have too clearly of a defined "if=then" concept of morality. 


Again, just some (incredibly off-topic) food for thought.

[Fast Jimmy]

David7204 wrote...

You do not spend 50 hours telling a story about a group of characters and then, at the climax, have a bunch of either minor characters or characters the player has never seen before at all come in and solve everything while the player character and party stands by and does nothing. Are people seriously trying to defend such a thing as good writing?

So Jacob or Loghain (you wouldn't get the reference, but whatev's) COULD be a part of this group you mention? What happened to "the protagonist must be the center" argument from a few pages back?

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 01 novembre 2013 - 11:31 .