1331 réponses à ce sujet

[dreamgazer]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Narrative Causality does say that. Exactly that.

I'm calling complete BS on this. 

Give us proof. Show us the link. Because I'm certain that this is a complete lie.

[David7204]

How the does the protagonist having companions compromise him or her being the center of the story?

It doesn't.

Giving them a most important role for a filmsy reason (such as being the player's least liked companion and therefore being the sacrifical goat) absolutely does.

Modifié par David7204, 01 novembre 2013 - 11:36 .

[Fast Jimmy]

David7204 wrote...

How the does the protagonist having companions compromise him or her being the center of the story?

It doesn't.

What makes the character the player is controlling inherently the center of the story?

[DeinonSlayer]

EntropicAngel wrote...

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?

Is this a strawman? I don't know, but I think this is a strawman.

We were talking about our COMPANIONS, David. Not "other minor characters." YOU introduced the concept of our companions getting fifteen minutes of fame.

Why are you bringing "minor characters" into this? Why are you deliberately misrepresenting this argument?

Because it's easier to KO a strawman.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

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?

NO!

STOP!



You're the only one proclaiming this.

You've changed your argument. This is an invalid and irrelevant point. 

[The Flying Grey Warden]

David7204 wrote...

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.

So suddenly you're the grand enforcer, interpretor, and expert on all things narratively causationed. Again, just because you see a link between an event and what you think is that event's cause, or in this case what you think can't be an events cause, in the narrative, doesn't make it true.

Modifié par The Flying Grey Warden, 01 novembre 2013 - 11:37 .

[DeinonSlayer]

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

The main character is central to the story simply because we are seeing from their point of view. It doesn't mean they orchestrate unique control over the direction of the story. In fact, they may be pretty much powerless and still be the main character. Makes me think of the Red Badge of Courage.

I suspect Heroism will be the focus of David's reply.

*pours a shot*

[David7204]

EntropicAngel wrote...

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?

Is this a strawman? I don't know, but I think this is a strawman.

We were talking about our COMPANIONS, David. Not "other minor characters." YOU introduced the concept of our companions getting fifteen minutes of fame.

Why are you bringing "minor characters" into this? Why are you deliberately misrepresenting this argument?

It's the exact same principle. The exact same. The story is certainly more about Javik than it is about, say, Eddie Leng. And yes, it would be leaps and bounds better to have Javik take a central role than to have Eddie Leng take one.

But it's still not good enough. Because although the story is much more about Javik than it is about Eddie, it's still not about Javik.

Modifié par David7204, 01 novembre 2013 - 11:39 .

[Volus Warlord]

David7204 wrote...

How the does the protagonist having companions compromise him or her being the center of the story?

It doesn't.

Giving them a most important role for a filmsy reason (such as being the player's least liked companion and therefore being the sacrifical goat) absolutely does.

It makes perfect sense, but you are incapable of understanding it, so I won't bother to explain it.

[The Flying Grey Warden]

I would like to point out that a song of ice and fire has managed to kill off what many considered it's "main character" for a time, and has still been going strong and staying narratively stable.

There is more then one way to tell a story, and there isn't a single right way to do it.

[Volus Warlord]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

It would've been pretty fitting for Javik to end the Reaper cycle.

No, it would have been more fitting for Liara to end the Reaper cycle.

[David7204]

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

The main character is central to the story simply because we are seeing from their point of view. It doesn't mean they orchestrate unique control over the direction of the story. In fact, they may be pretty much powerless and still be the main character. Makes me think of the Red Badge of Courage.

No.

Does the protagonist of the Red Badge of Courage win the war? Does he become a commando and go on a one-man killing spree? Of course not.

But that's not important. Because that's not what the story is about.

The novel is about courage and cowardice. And although the protagonist might be phyiscally weak and ineffectual, he's the one who directly faces those themes. He's the one who confronts the central conflict of the story. The war is merely the setting.

Modifié par David7204, 01 novembre 2013 - 11:48 .

[Br3admax]

David7204 wrote...

How the does the protagonist having companions compromise him or her being the center of the story?

It doesn't.

Giving them a most important role for a filmsy reason (such as being the player's least liked companion and therefore being the sacrifical goat) absolutely does.

DA is not about the protagonist, David. It has never been about them. That is why there will always be a new one every game. The center of the story is Thedas. Why don't you understand, your playing the game aside? How many times must even the devs tell this to you before you understand? 

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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.

Oh, I'm not trying to say that all morality can be defined that way. But perhaps some broad boundaries can be made, no?

Oh, without a doubt. But you'd need to define "boundaries" and you'd need to define "broad" before we'd really get a grasp on what such a system could (and couldn't) do. The "couldn't" part is exceptionally important. No one system can possible be capable of governing every action in every circumstance. The only perfect system is one that is constantly in flux, since it recognizes there is always need for movement and change.

[Fast Jimmy]

Volus Warlord wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

It would've been pretty fitting for Javik to end the Reaper cycle.

No, it would have been more fitting for Liara to end the Reaper cycle.

It would have been TRULY fitting for Harbinger to end the Reaper cycle. 

[David7204]

EntropicAngel wrote...

The story is no more about the protagonist than it is about Javik. Or Loghain. That's what you're failing--no, refusing--to understand.

Tell me. Is the story more about Shepard than Eddie Leng? Is the story more about the Warden and Hawke and the Inquistor than the guy who says 'Enchantment?' and nothing else?

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I guess.

It isn't adopted from a particular philosopher, just my own thoughts on the matter.

You may have figured out, but I loathe the mindset that anything and everything is subjective. That's anarchy in a pretty dress.

I'm not even convinced that you're real.  With something as ephemeral as a moral rule, significantly less so.