1331 réponses à ce sujet

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The protagonist confronting the central conflict of the story does not make 'the universe revolve around him.' It just makes him the protagonist.

I don't think anymore is arguing that David, but you claim it's repulsive if a companion does it

Not at all. I'm claiming it's repulsive (to me) if a companion does it by sole virtue of being the player's least liked companion.

Fixed that to reflect that the objective truth of this statement is that it is entirely subjective.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 02 novembre 2013 - 12:01 .

[Volus Warlord]

David7204 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The protagonist confronting the central conflict of the story does not make 'the universe revolve around him.' It just makes him the protagonist.

I don't think anymore is arguing that David, but you claim it's repulsive if a companion does it

Not at all. I'm claiming it's repulsive if a companion does it by sole virtue of being the player's least liked companion.

Repulsive? Hardly. They can have other sole virtues of not being bang-able after found too likable, or having little political value.

Modifié par Volus Warlord, 02 novembre 2013 - 12:00 .

[Fast Jimmy]

David7204 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The protagonist confronting the central conflict of the story does not make 'the universe revolve around him.' It just makes him the protagonist.

I don't think anymore is arguing that David, but you claim it's repulsive if a companion does it

Not at all. I'm claiming it's repulsive if a companion does it by sole virtue of being the player's least liked companion.

So you're saying giving the player the choice is repulsive? Because people will behave in a predictable fashion?

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 02 novembre 2013 - 12:02 .

[DeinonSlayer]

David7204 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The protagonist confronting the central conflict of the story does not make 'the universe revolve around him.' It just makes him the protagonist.

I don't think anymore is arguing that David, but you claim it's repulsive if a companion does it

Not at all. I'm claiming it's repulsive if a companion does it by sole virtue of being the player's least liked companion.

*cough* Loghain *cough* *cough* Risen Ogre.

I don't know if you've ever watched Doctor Who, but I'd be curious about your reaction to the episode "Midnight." A background character comes out of nowhere to resolve the central problem in a rather powerful fashion.

Seriously. Watch the episode. Don't read the wiki and pretend you understood it.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 02 novembre 2013 - 12:03 .

[Allan Schumacher]

David7204 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The protagonist confronting the central conflict of the story does not make 'the universe revolve around him.' It just makes him the protagonist.

I don't think anymore is arguing that David, but you claim it's repulsive if a companion does it

Not at all. I'm claiming it's repulsive if a companion does it by sole virtue of being the player's least liked companion.

To be clear, are you asking game developers to protect you from sabotaging your own game play by sacrificing the character you like the least (you want them to die because you like them the least) and dealing with the juxtaposition of the character you like the least being acknowledged for the sacrifice?

[DeinonSlayer]

Oh, Allan, you know not what you're getting yourself into...

[Fast Jimmy]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

David7204 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The protagonist confronting the central conflict of the story does not make 'the universe revolve around him.' It just makes him the protagonist.

I don't think anymore is arguing that David, but you claim it's repulsive if a companion does it

Not at all. I'm claiming it's repulsive if a companion does it by sole virtue of being the player's least liked companion.

*cough* Loghain *cough* *cough* Risen Ogre.

I don't know if you've ever watched Doctor Who, but I'd be curious about your reaction to the episode "Midnight." A background character comes out of nowhere to resolve the central problem in a rather powerful fashion.

Your mom came out of nowhere to resolve the central problem in a rather powerful fashion!

Sorry, I've been on a weird "your mom" kick recently. 


To get back on topic, you can make the argument that the character who resovles the main focus of the story is the protagonist, or you can say the character who tells the story must be the protagonist. You can't say both. They aren't true statements.

Moby Dick is written entirely from Ishmael's perspective. Yet Ishmael does nothing, except narrate the story of the true main characters - Ahab and the White Whale. 

Either Ahab is the main character, or Ishmael is the main character... but Ahab does not give the perspective and he also is the focus of the entire story's focus and climax. And, last I checked, Moby Dick was a real story.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 02 novembre 2013 - 12:41 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

David7204 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The protagonist confronting the central conflict of the story does not make 'the universe revolve around him.' It just makes him the protagonist.

I don't think anymore is arguing that David, but you claim it's repulsive if a companion does it

Not at all. I'm claiming it's repulsive if a companion does it by sole virtue of being the player's least liked companion.

*cough* Loghain *cough* *cough* Risen Ogre.

I don't know if you've ever watched Doctor Who, but I'd be curious about your reaction to the episode "Midnight." A background character comes out of nowhere to resolve the central problem in a rather powerful fashion.

That was a great episode. David Tennant at his best. Great how he was coming to a point where even he was beginning to think he was possessed. Reminds of the ST:TNG episode "Chain of Command"

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

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.

The story of Mass Effect is not about Shepard either. He just happens to be the guy we play as. Sure, Shepard plays an important role in both the story and the war against the reapers, but the story isn't about him.

Same goes for Dragon Age. The story is not about the warden or Hawke.

Same goes for plenty of games and stories; they're not always about the protagonist. Most stories are in fact not about the protagonist.

[Fallstar]

To answer the OP, surely it depends on the character you create? Plus I'd hope any such choice would be a little more complex than that.

I also disagree with what you write here, "where you were able to live, but only by letting the villain responsible slip free, possibly with the world knowing that you did so (the empty life)."

The 'villian' i.e. the archdemon is dead. The being that 'slips free' is the uncorrupted old god. They are two entirely different beings. Think of the difference between a dwarf and a genlock. You know nothing of what the old gods are like based on what an archdemon is like.

In the end, you cannot know what will come of performing the dark ritual. It is not a choice between a meaningful death and a life with terrible consequences - it is a choice of certain death, or life with the possibility of bad consequences further down the road. Even that is an oversimplification when you take into account the people involved.

[GreyLycanTrope]

I fully admit to having lost the train of thought at this point. Shouldn't have taken that left turn at Albuquerque.

[Iakus]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I think the Dark Ritual is close to that example. Though in that case Morrigan is leaving regardless.

I was more thinking of a situation where the NPC advocates a particular position and if you choose against that, it's a deal breaker for the NPC. Similar, but a bit different.

well, it's pretty celar at the end of DAO that all the companions are going their separate ways anyway.  But yeah, Morrigan leaves regardless, just a question of before or after the battle.

There is also DA2's "mages or templars" decision, where the companions all line up for one side or the other.  And even then you have to kill whoever sides against hawke unless theeir friendship/rivalry is maxed out.

Except Sebastian.  And Aveline, I think.   She just walks away.  But still.  Death is involved with most of them.

Baldur's Gate did have some companions who would abandon the player if you didn't do their quest within an allotted time.  And BG2 had some conditions where a companion may abandon the player temporarilly or permanently if you did something tehy didn't like (I probably should not have been surprised when Keldorn, a paladin, didn't care for my deciding to do some housecleaning for the Shadow Thieves ) 

[Fast Jimmy]

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
To get back on topic, you can make the argument that the character who resovles the main focus of the story is the protagonist, or you can say the character who tells the story must be the protagonist. You can't say both. They aren't true statements.

Moby Dick is written entirely from Ishmael's perspective. Yet Ishmael does nothing, except narrate the story of the true main characters - Ahab and the White Whale. 

Either Ahab is the main character, or Ishmael is the main character... but Ahab does not give the perspective and he also is the focus of the entire story's focus and climax. And, last I checked, Moby Dick was a real story.

Yet we are relying entirely on Ishmael for processing the information and making conclusions about it because we have no idea what Ahab is thinking.  The same thing happens in the Great Gatsby.  Gatsby is the main character plot wise, but it isn't Gatsby who provides us with disgust for decadence and the superficiality of the get rich lifestyle of the 1920s.  That comes from Nick, who just sits around and observes, but Nick's realization *is* the point of the story.  What Ahab feels is sort of irrelevant.  We are supposed to be judging Ahab through Ishmael and not sympathizing with him.  Ishmael's reaction is the point.  

Right. And if The Great Gatsby was a video game, we'd be playing Nick. 

David is saying, if we are playing Nick, Gatsby can't be the main character. And he can't be the one to resolve the central conflicts or be the one central events revolve around.

Which is preposterous.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 02 novembre 2013 - 12:20 .

[David7204]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

David7204 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The protagonist confronting the central conflict of the story does not make 'the universe revolve around him.' It just makes him the protagonist.

I don't think anymore is arguing that David, but you claim it's repulsive if a companion does it

Not at all. I'm claiming it's repulsive if a companion does it by sole virtue of being the player's least liked companion.

To be clear, are you asking game developers to protect you from sabotaging your own game play by sacrificing the character you like the least (you want them to die because you like them the least) and dealing with the juxtaposition of the character you like the least being acknowledged for the sacrifice?

At the very climax of the story, the very crux of the conflict, yes. In stories like these with lots of characters carrying lots of themes, a character shouldn't have a defining role unless they've been a defining character of the story whose themes are very in tune with the central conflict.

It's a difficult line to draw. Because I have no problem with a character dying on the suicide mission, for example. The story doesn't become about them. But If Javik alone accompanied Shepard at the end, and was the one to give a final speech about something or other, that would bother me. It would bother me with any squadmate, even one I like a lot.

Modifié par David7204, 02 novembre 2013 - 12:34 .

[Br3admax]

I bet Oblivion would just rustle your jimmies, wouldn't it, David?

[David7204]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Right. And if The Great Gatsby was a video game, we'd be playing Nick. 

David is saying, if we are playing Nick, Gatsby can't be the main character. And he can't be the one to resolve the central conflicts or be the one central events revolve around.

Which is preposterous.

I'm saying no such thing. I'm perfectly welcome of the idea of the player character not being the protagonist. Just as the story is told through Watson's eyes but is really about Holmes. I have no idea how that would be done in a video game, but I'd be fine with it if it worked well.

[Volus Warlord]

David7204 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Right. And if The Great Gatsby was a video game, we'd be playing Nick. 

David is saying, if we are playing Nick, Gatsby can't be the main character. And he can't be the one to resolve the central conflicts or be the one central events revolve around.

Which is preposterous.

I'm saying no such thing. I'm perfectly welcome of the idea of the player character not being the protagonist. Just as the story is told through Watson's eyes but is really about Holmes. I have no idea how that would be done in a video game, but I'd be fine with it if it worked well.

That's complete and total nonsense. If the player character was not the protaganist, there would be no point in playing. 

[DeinonSlayer]

David7204 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

David7204 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The protagonist confronting the central conflict of the story does not make 'the universe revolve around him.' It just makes him the protagonist.

I don't think anymore is arguing that David, but you claim it's repulsive if a companion does it

Not at all. I'm claiming it's repulsive if a companion does it by sole virtue of being the player's least liked companion.

To be clear, are you asking game developers to protect you from sabotaging your own game play by sacrificing the character you like the least (you want them to die because you like them the least) and dealing with the juxtaposition of the character you like the least being acknowledged for the sacrifice?

At the very climax of the story, the very crux of the conflict, yes. A character shouldn't have a defining role unless they've been a defining character of the story whose themes are very in tune with the central conflict.

It's a difficult line to draw. Because I have no problem with a character dying on the suicide mission, for example. The story doesn't become about them. But If Javik accompanied Shepard at the end, and was the one to give a final speech about something or other, that would bother me. It would bother me with any character, even one I like a lot.

Yep, pretty sure you'd hate "Midnight" then.

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

At the very climax of the story, the very crux of the conflict, yes. A character shouldn't have a defining role unless they've been a defining character of the story whose themes are very in tune with the central conflict.

Says you.

There are no laws that dictate stories must be written that way and there are in fact, many stories that are not written this way.

David7204 wrote...

It's a difficult line to draw. Because I have no problem with a character dying on the suicide mission, for example. The story doesn't become about them. But If Javik accompanied Shepard at the end, and was the one to give a final speech about something or other, that would bother me. It would bother me with any character, even one I like a lot.

And that is your personal problem, not the problem of the story. It's perfectly fine for a story to have a side-character make the ultimate sacrifice, including a final speech. That's 100% perfectly fine. There are plenty of stories that are exactly like that, and they are good and likable stories.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 02 novembre 2013 - 12:29 .

[Br3admax]

David7204 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Right. And if The Great Gatsby was a video game, we'd be playing Nick. 

David is saying, if we are playing Nick, Gatsby can't be the main character. And he can't be the one to resolve the central conflicts or be the one central events revolve around.

Which is preposterous.

I'm saying no such thing. I'm perfectly welcome of the idea of the player character not being the protagonist. Just as the story is told through Watson's eyes but is really about Holmes. I have no idea how that would be done in a video game, but I'd be fine with it if it worked well.

Do you know what protagonist means? It does not mean main character. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

David7204 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The protagonist confronting the central conflict of the story does not make 'the universe revolve around him.' It just makes him the protagonist.

I don't think anymore is arguing that David, but you claim it's repulsive if a companion does it

Not at all. I'm claiming it's repulsive if a companion does it by sole virtue of being the player's least liked companion.

To be clear, are you asking game developers to protect you from sabotaging your own game play by sacrificing the character you like the least (you want them to die because you like them the least) and dealing with the juxtaposition of the character you like the least being acknowledged for the sacrifice?

At the very climax of the story, the very crux of the conflict, yes. A character shouldn't have a defining role unless they've been a defining character of the story whose themes are very in tune with the central conflict.

It's a difficult line to draw. Because I have no problem with a character dying on the suicide mission, for example. The story doesn't become about them. But If Javik accompanied Shepard at the end, and was the one to give a final speech about something or other, that would bother me. It would bother me with any character, even one I like a lot.

On the bolded, literally no one has said anything about this David. No one. 

As for the characters having a defining role, I think a character should have a defining role for the character. I think it would be interesting to see how it affects the story, including the players decision on how to react to their death. The only downside to it is how difficult it would be to achieve within a game.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 02 novembre 2013 - 12:31 .

[Plaintiff]

Jaulen wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I expect to be able to determine 'right' and 'wrong' for myself, thanks.

My party members will never be 'right' when they criticize me. If I thought their opinion had any merit, I would've done what they wanted to begin with.

See, this is just being stubborn and too wound up on your own opinion to accept any kind of inpur or different perspective. It's a terrible style of leadership, let alone management. 

Even if I don't agree with a squadmates position and probably won't accept it as my given solution to a problem, it's still always useful to get another perspective or opinion on an issue. 

Assuming you're always right only gets you so far until your head lands in the dirt and your ass is hanging in the air when you inevitably reach a point where you've misjudged or miscalculated. 

Oh yeah...Iv'e worked for managers like this.....the worst most dysfunctional people I have ever worked for.
Heck, I played DA:O merrily imagining each person my rogue flurried to death, or swept the head off of was said manager.

Only time leadership style like that 'works' is in a cult of personality dictatorship.

Do you and your managers often debate morality?