1331 réponses à ce sujet

[The Heretic of Time]

Volus Warlord wrote...

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. 

Not entirely true.

I'd argue that Elisabeth is the protagonist of Bioshock Infinite, yet we don't play as her, we play as Booker DeWitt, who is obviously also a very important character who has all the qualities of a protagonist. Still, I can't help but feel that Elisabeth is the real protagonist in Bioshock Infinite, not Booker.

Are you saying that there is no point in playing Bioshock Infinite?

Edit: Nevermind all that. Thinking this through a 2nd time made me realize that Booker is indeed the protagonist of Bioshock Infinite, not Elisabeth, though the story does clearly focus on her a lot and she's clearly the main drive of the narrative. The game moves the narrative forwards primarily through her, and the game's story is told primarily through her. Still, Booker is the protagonist and thus I agree with you Volus.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 02 novembre 2013 - 12:37 .

[David7204]

We seem to have disagreements whether the player character is inherently the protagonist or not and what 'protagonist' actually means.

[The Flying Grey Warden]

I would like a game with a Rashomon approach to a story, imo.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Plaintiff wrote...

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?

My subordinates and I do. As Soldiers, and with myself being a junior Officer and leader, it's something we tend to do. 

It doesn't need to be about morality though. You never stipulated as such. You only stated that you don't care what any of your companions say since they're not you. 

I wouldn't last long as a Platoon Leader if I said that to my Platoon Sergeant. Nor would anyone who was ever successful at their job.

On the subject of morality, it's a very subjective and touchy topic. Can you tell me that you're always right morally? Perhaps, but from a universal perspective?

Fiddler's Green knows I'm ****ed up like a soup sandwich when it comes to morals and interpreting the Army Values. And it's especially worse since, as an officer, I'm expected to set the moral, ethical, and professional standard for my Soldiers. All I can say is that I'm rather good at keeping my more... sociopathic side in check. They know it's there, but they know I use it to accomplish the mission.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 02 novembre 2013 - 12:40 .

[Fast Jimmy]

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.

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. 

David7204 wrote...

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

Forgive me if I was confused, but if not having the PC being the protagonist is shoddy and the character who faces the climax of the story should always be the protagonist... then I'm very confused.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...

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. 

Not entirely true.

I'd argue that Elisabeth is the protagonist of Bioshock Infinite, yet we don't play as her, we play as Booker DeWitt, who is obviously also a very important character who has all the qualities of a protagonist. Still, I can't help but feel that Elisabeth is the real protagonist in Bioshock Infinite, not Booker.

Are you saying that there is no point in playing Bioshock Infinite?

Booker is more of the deuteragonist.

[DeinonSlayer]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Do you and your managers often debate morality?

My subordinates and I do. As Soldiers, and with myself being a junior Officer and leader, it's something we tend to do. 

It doesn't need to be about morality though. You never stipulated as such. You only stated that you don't care what any of your companions say since they're not you. 

I wouldn't last long as a Platoon Leader if I said that to my Platoon Sergeant. Nor would anyone who was ever successful at their job.

That's something else a story will strongly benefit from - the last thing we need is ME3-style companions who act like pets and never object to anything you do.

[David7204]

What that meant is that it's shoddy to assume the player character isn't the protagonist and center because statements have been released kinda-sorta-maybe-not-really saying so.

[Fast Jimmy]

David7204 wrote...

What that meant is that it's shoddy to assume the player character isn't the protagonist and center because statements have been released kinda-sorta-maybe-not-really saying so.

...what?

[David7204]

EntropicAngel claimed that the Inquisitor is not the protagonist because of the statements released by the developers saying Dragon Age was about the world and not one single character. Kinda-sorta something like that.

I don't think the developers actually meant the protagonists are unimportant.

Modifié par David7204, 02 novembre 2013 - 12:50 .

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

What that meant is that it's shoddy to assume the player character isn't the protagonist and center because statements have been released kinda-sorta-maybe-not-really saying so.

Again; Being the protagonist =/= being the center (of the story). Point in case: Bioshock Infinite.

Same goes for Dragon Age: Origins, in which both Alistar and Loghain (and arguably Morrigan) all play a more vital role in the story and are more important than the player's character.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 02 novembre 2013 - 12:45 .

[David7204]

Dragon Age not being about a one certain character doesn't mean the player character of the current game isn't the protagonist and isn't important.

Modifié par David7204, 02 novembre 2013 - 12:44 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Br3ad wrote...

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. 

Yes, it does. There can be more than one main character, and more than one protagonist, but a protagnoist is always a main character. David and the rest of thread are clearly talking past each other, because David hasn't played Dragon Age, so really doesn't even have anything of worth to add.

[DeinonSlayer]

EntropicAngel wrote...

David7204 wrote...

What that meant is that it's shoddy to assume the player character isn't the protagonist and center because statements have been released kinda-sorta-maybe-not-really saying so.

There have been no "kinda sorta maybe not really saying so" statements. It has been plainly stated by Gaider (as well as Laidlaw I believe) that the Dragon Age series is about the world of Thedas, not about a certain character. This, it has been said, is part of the reason for different protagonists per game: the overaching story is not about the protagonist.

You're implying uncertainty on our part when there is none. The story is about Thedas. The player character is an actor in that play, along with others. Simply by virtue of the fact that he's the player character, we see more of him (imagine a camera following a particular actor onstage), but there are other characters with equal or greater importance, power, etc.

Speaking of which, I haven't played DA2, but I note in DA:O that you can have any member of the party lead the party at any time. Just click on them, and all others follow. It'd be like if you could play as Garrus in Mass Effect, occasionally switching to whoever's perspective you wanted to see from to issue them commands.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Dragon Age not being about a one certain character doesn't mean the player character of the current game isn't the protagonist and isn't important.

No one is arguing this David. Don't bring it up since it's not a relevant argument.

[Plaintiff]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
My subordinates and I do. As Soldiers, and with myself being a junior Officer and leader, it's something we tend to do. 

It doesn't need to be about morality though. You never stipulated as such. You only stated that you don't care what any of your companions say since they're not you. 

I wouldn't last long as a Platoon Leader if I said that to my Platoon Sergeant. Nor would anyone who was ever successful at their job.

Yes it does need to be about morality, the question was always about morality. That's clear to anyone who is even vaguely capable of recognising context. That's why Heretic-Hanar used the example of the Rachni Queen and not some other issue that has nothing to do with morality.

The only time opinion is even worth talking about is in the context of moral issues. If my companion says "Look out, there's a trap over there!", opinion has nothing to do with it. There's either a trap or there isn't. Why would I waste time arguing about that?

[The Night Mammoth]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

David7204 wrote...

What that meant is that it's shoddy to assume the player character isn't the protagonist and center because statements have been released kinda-sorta-maybe-not-really saying so.

Again; Being the protagonist =/= being the center (of the story). Point in case: Bioshock Infinite.

Same goes for Dragon Age: Origins, in which both Alistar and Loghain (and arguably Morrigan) all play a more vital role in the story and are more important than the player's character.

Case in point: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. The story is told from the perspective of a supposed deaf, mute psychatric patient. The story is not really about this character, the story is about another patient. 

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

Dragon Age not being about a one certain character doesn't mean the player character of the current game isn't the protagonist and isn't important.

Which is not even something I argued. Do you even comprehend what I am saying to you? Or do I need to spell it out for you (which I pretty much already did)?

Being the protagonist IS NOT THE SAME as being the center or focus of the story, nor does it mean that the protagonist is the most important character of the story. Stories aren't always ABOUT the protagonist. More often than not, the stories are about the WORLD the protagonist lives in and the protagonist merely functions as a window between us - the players/readers/watchers and the world which the story is about. Dragon Age is such a story and the protagonists of the Dragon Age games are such protagonists.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 02 novembre 2013 - 12:54 .