1331 réponses à ce sujet

[addiction21]

Volus Warlord wrote...

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

Why?

[The Heretic of Time]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

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. 

Good example. 

And lets not forget about The Green Mile, a movie I know David has seen and at the same time a movie that serves as an example of the point I tried to make.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 02 novembre 2013 - 12:51 .

[David7204]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

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. 

Did I ever argue such a thing? No. In fact, I just gave the example of Watson and Holmes a few posts ago. What I said was it's shoddy to assume such a thing based on the developer statements released.

[GreyLycanTrope]

The Flying Grey Warden wrote...

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

Marge: Come on, Homer. Japan will be fun! You liked Rashomon
Homer: That's not how I remember it!

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Plaintiff wrote...

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.

I repeat, you never stipulated in your post. And in any manner, I'll say that having a system of morality and taking it without even so much as getting a reasoning behind another companions opinions, ideas, input, and insight is rather limiting. You're making a moral high ground fallacy. What's to say that your morality is going to create a practical, acceptable, feasible, efficient, and workable solution to a problem 100% of the time? Are you going to completely ignore any and all advice or input simply because it's not yours and you can't possibly be wrong?

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?

How would you approach the trap? Maybe it's an obvious trap to hide a more subtle one? Maybe it's not a trap but an opening? How can you turn this trap to your advantage? Who's making the trap? What is the trap? Is there a way around it? Does it make sense to avoid the trap? Does it make sense to spring the trap? How do you want your companions to react to the trap if you choose to spring it?

It makes sense to get more sound advice from your companions on what is and isn't possible. Ultimately, as the leader, the decision is on you, but I know as a leader, I'd never turn down an offer of advice or input. It makes you come off as egomaniacal. And that is what you're coming off as.

Think tactically. How would you, as the leader, approach this situation?

I really should give you links to all the high speed video's I made back in ROTC for STX lanes and battle drills. Or advice from my CO in Afghanistan.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 02 novembre 2013 - 12:58 .

[The Heretic of Time]

This:

David7204 wrote...

the Inquisitor is not the protagonist

Is not the same as this:

David7204 wrote...

the protagonists are unimportant.

Please try to figure out what you're trying to say first before you're posting, because right now you're not making any sense.

[David7204]

I'd appreciate you not chopping the ends off my sentences to make it appear I've said things I haven't.

[Plaintiff]

People seem to be conflating 'protagonist' with 'focal character'. They're not the same.

The protagonist is, typically, the character whose viewpoint we're supposed to follow and most identify with, while the focal character is the character on whom we're meant to place the majority of our interest and attention. The protagonist and the focal character CAN be the same, but they can also be different.

In David's example of Watson and Holmes, Watson is the protagonist, and Holmes is the focal character.

[Fast Jimmy]

David7204 wrote...

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.

You're right. 

The developers meant that the world itself is the protagonist.

You don't seem to believe them. Which is your prerogative. But it is what they say - the series is about the world, not about any individual.

I, personally, think a series like TES accomplishes this more effectively, but it doesn't mean that the Bioware devs are wrong about their own product.

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

I'd appreciate you not chopping the ends off my sentences to make it appear I've said things I haven't.

I didn't chop any ends off, only (non-vital) beginnings. The vital parts of your posts are there.

I don't know what you're trying to argue here, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

The developers saying (or not saying) the protagonist is/isn't important is completely unrelated to EntropicAngel saying that the player characters in Dragon Age aren't/might not be the protagonists.

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

DG: That's difficult to say. Unlike Mass Effect, we didn't set out to make a trilogy. There's a point I think at which trying to import saved data and keeping things consistent becomes a little problematic. A lot of fans expect that every single decision be treated as sacrosanct, and it's very hard to do that and make a coherent plot. Some of the really big world-changing decisions, the only way could maintain those in a way that is significant would be to make entirely divergent plots, which would be great if we could do it, but we can't. So we have to control it to a degree, and it's possible that at a certain point we might need to reboot the plot. 

This is the part of this interview that I always focus on. 

Death to the Save Import! Mwuahahahahaaa!

[Br3admax]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

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.

No it doesn't. Not in the way that David is trying to use it. Using the earlier example, Nick is the protagonist of the Great Gatsby, even though Gatsby himself is the main character. 

[The Heretic of Time]

Plaintiff wrote...

People seem to be conflating 'protagonist' with 'focal character'. They're not the same.

The protagonist is, typically, the character whose viewpoint we're supposed to follow and most identify with, while the focal character is the character on whom we're meant to place the majority of our interest and attention. The protagonist and the focal character CAN be the same, but they can also be different.

In David's example of Watson and Holmes, Watson is the protagonist, and Holmes is the focal character.

Well, in that case, by that definition, Booker DeWitt in Bioshock Infinite would the focal character, while Elisabeth would be the protagonist.

Or to stick to Dragon Age Origins: Your player character would be the focal character, while your party members would be the protagonists. After all, the player character is just an empty shell who never shows any emotions whatsoever (well maybe in the dialogue, but you never hear his voice and his face is almost always a very blank, empty and expressionless stare), while the party members do. They are the people you get emotionally attached to and they are the people the player empathizes with.


So yeah, two games in which the player character might not be the protagonist, going off your definition here.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 02 novembre 2013 - 01:11 .

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

DG: That's difficult to say. Unlike Mass Effect, we didn't set out to make a trilogy. There's a point I think at which trying to import saved data and keeping things consistent becomes a little problematic. A lot of fans expect that every single decision be treated as sacrosanct, and it's very hard to do that and make a coherent plot. Some of the really big world-changing decisions, the only way could maintain those in a way that is significant would be to make entirely divergent plots, which would be great if we could do it, but we can't. So we have to control it to a degree, and it's possible that at a certain point we might need to reboot the plot. 

This is the part of this interview that I always focus on. 

Death to the Save Import! Mwuahahahahaaa!

Yeah, I thought of how you'd get sidetracked on that. Lol.

I'm doing some math in my head. The time that interview came out is actually roughly when my Save Import crusade really kicked off (post DA2, yet far before DA:I's announcement, or even ME3's release).

If it did match up, I'd say it was unintentional, but likely this influenced me with the thought of "DA2 might not have been a fluke with how they didn't follow through with prior game choices in any real way." And, as you know, I'd rather have fully fleshed out ramifications from prior game events than shallow acknowledgements that serve no purpose but have dialouge or Codex entries that serve as a proof of concept that the software worked (or, in cases didn't) to recognize a plot flag from one game to the next.

[Plaintiff]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

People seem to be conflating 'protagonist' with 'focal character'. They're not the same.

The protagonist is, typically, the character whose viewpoint we're supposed to follow and most identify with, while the focal character is the character on whom we're meant to place the majority of our interest and attention. The protagonist and the focal character CAN be the same, but they can also be different.

In David's example of Watson and Holmes, Watson is the protagonist, and Holmes is the focal character.

Well, in that case, by that definition, Booker DeWitt in Bioshock Infinite would the focal character, while Elisabeth would be the protagonist.

Other way around.

Booker is the protagonist; you see the story through his eyes. Literally. Elizabeth is the focal character. We place the majority of our interest and attention on her because Booker places the majority of his interest and attention on her, and we are Booker.

Or to stick to Dragon Age Origins: Your player character would be the focal character, while your party members would be the protagonists. After all, the player character is just an empty shell who never shows any emotions whatsoever (well maybe in the dialogue, but you never hear his voice and his face is almost always a very blank, empty and expressionless stare), while the party members do. They are the people you get emotionally attached to and they are the people the player empathizes with.

So yeah, two games in which the player character might not be the protagonist, going off your definition here.

No, the viewpoint character is the protagonist. The protagonist being an 'empty shell' only serves to facilitate that by allowing you to more readily insert yourself or a character of your own making into that role.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 02 novembre 2013 - 01:18 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Plaintiff wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

People seem to be conflating 'protagonist' with 'focal character'. They're not the same.

The protagonist is, typically, the character whose viewpoint we're supposed to follow and most identify with, while the focal character is the character on whom we're meant to place the majority of our interest and attention. The protagonist and the focal character CAN be the same, but they can also be different.

In David's example of Watson and Holmes, Watson is the protagonist, and Holmes is the focal character.

Well, in that case, by that definition, Booker DeWitt in Bioshock Infinite would the focal character, while Elisabeth would be the protagonist.

Other way around.

Booker is the protagonist; you see the story through his eyes. Literally. Elizabeth is the focal character. We place the majority of our interest and attention on her because Booker places the majority of his interest and attention on her, and we are Booker.

I think you might have the terms reversed.

The protagonist is the character we as the audience connect to and are supposed to empathize with. It's the character who's emotions and reations are central to the narrative.

The focal character's emotions and ambitions are not meant to be empathized with to as high an extent as the protagonist. This is - as far as I know - the main difference between the protagonist and the focal character.

Booker in this case is the viewpoint character. We experience to his point of view.

The viewpoint character is not necessarily always the protagonist as far as I'm aware.


To bring up Sherlock again;

Sherlock is the protagonist, but Watson is the viewpoint character.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 02 novembre 2013 - 01:25 .

[Xilizhra]

I don't think he is, but please, elaborate. Tell me why you think so.

He tried to have the Grey Wardens assassinated on a completely fabricated charge, covering "murderous." And he sold Fereldan citizens to Tevinter for the sake of other Fereldan citizens being free from Orlais, in theory, covering "hypocritical slaver."

Javik is simply the product of his environment, you can't blame him for that. If you're actually nice to Javik with your Shepard and actually listen to him, you'll notice that he does have a valid point very often. Javik's attitude is the attitude you need when you're up against an enemy with the most impossible odds ever.

But if you're nice to Javik, he'll actually listen to you and he'll eventually come around and try to see it your way. But that's obviously not gonna happen if you're a douchebag towards him all the time.

I'm nice to everyone, always, and never have party members killed or similar just because I don't like them. However, while "product of environment" has some purchase, it doesn't mean everything, because not everyone from one environment acts the same way. And I've never needed his attitude before, and don't even now.

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'm doing some math in my head. The time that interview came out is actually roughly when my Save Import crusade really kicked off (post DA2, yet far before DA:I's announcement, or even ME3's release).

If it did match up, I'd say it was unintentional, but likely this influenced me with the thought of "DA2 might not have been a fluke with how they didn't follow through with prior game choices in any real way." And, as you know, I'd rather have fully fleshed out ramifications from prior game events than shallow acknowledgements that serve no purpose but have dialouge or Codex entries that serve as a proof of concept that the software worked (or, in cases didn't) to recognize a plot flag from one game to the next.

And as you know, I'd argue that the perfect way to do that would be to make those game events events that the PC cannot control--can perhaps control their participation, but not whether it happens or not.

Yet how can you do that unless you inherently limit the choices or circumstances the player is given? 

Destroying the Anvil... how could that choice be one that is given to a player? He could say "destroy it" but then it refuses to be destroyed? That would make Caridan look incredibly foolish. Or, conversely, it could always be destroyed, even if you tried to save it... but that is, again, limting the story to one set of outcomes (even if its not one set of choices). I'd like multiple, even dozens of outcomes. But I'd like those myriad of outcomes to then be curtailed in future games to one canon, so that developing storylines could be continued to grow and more choices be offered with the same level of vartiability, but always a returning sense of balance.

Of course, I realize that is where we differe significantly. Because you drive much more satisfaction on making the RP choice rather than the story development choice than I do. Which is 100% fine... but that still doesn't make me wish there were tons of outcomes, not just tons of choices. And the only way outcomes can be numerous and varied in a series is through setting a canon between games, in my mind.

In a way, your approach is the same as mine. Curtailing the many choices down to one outcome. Mine just works on the macro level (between games), while yours on the micro level (between oen choice to the next).

[Fast Jimmy]

Xilizhra wrote...

I don't think he is, but please, elaborate. Tell me why you think so.

He tried to have the Grey Wardens assassinated on a completely fabricated charge, covering "murderous." And he sold Fereldan citizens to Tevinter for the sake of other Fereldan citizens being free from Orlais, in theory, covering "hypocritical slaver."

Just throwing this random bone out here but... are Elves considered "citizens" per se?