1331 réponses à ce sujet

[Allan Schumacher]

David7204 wrote...

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.

Even if it is a result of a direct choice the player makes?

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.

Just a comment, but no one made the assertion that a different character would be the one that gives the final speech or anything like that.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 02 novembre 2013 - 07:26 .

[Plaintiff]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

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.

You're not necessarily supposed to empathise with the protagonist, no. The protagonist is just the 'chief actor', the person whose story we are following. But that doesn't make them empathetic. The protagonist might be a murderer or rapist.

But you are supposed to 'connect' with them in some fashion, and in the case of Bioshock Infnite, we connect with Booker because the game quite literally places us inside his skin. We are following Booker's story.

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.

Who we empathize with is highly subjective, so it's not a good measure for determining protagonist-hood.

In the case of Bioshock Infinite, it's clearly Booker's story. Elizabeth plays a lot of different roles in Bioshock Infinite, but protagonist isn't one, as far as I understand the term. Elizabeth's importance is mostly derived from her connection to Booker. She's only in the story in the first place because Booker needs her in order to acheive his goals, and it eventuallly transpires that her importance to the narrative entirely derives from her connection to Booker.

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.

That's true, the viewpoint character is not necessarily the protagonist, but it's rare for that to be the case. I can't think of many stories where I would consider the viewpoint character to not be the protagonist. Possibly DA2, if we accept that Varric is the viewpoint character because he's narrating. Or a story where the 'viewpoint character' is an almost entirely passive narrator (which Booker most defnitely is not); the film Shawshank Redemption would qualify.

To bring up Sherlock again;

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

I disagree. In the stories where Watson appears, he's defintely the protagonist. The stories follow him primarily, and he often takes it upon himself to do detective work without Holmes, who often goes missing, or is concealing himself from Watson and others, either hiding or in disguise, until he emerges to solve the crime with the clues that Watson has gathered. Most of the time, the mystery is not just "who committed the murder?", but also "where the hell did Holmes go now?".

Holmes is more like a mentor character, imparting his knowledge and skills onto a protege.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 02 novembre 2013 - 09:13 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Plaintiff wrote...

You're not necessarily supposed to empathise with the protagonist, no. The protagonist is just the 'chief actor', the person whose story we are following. But that doesn't make them empathetic. The protagonist might be a murderer or rapist.

But you are supposed to 'connect' with them in some fashion, and in the case of Bioshock Infnite, we connect with Booker because the game quite literally places us inside his skin. We are following Booker's story.

Yes, we are supposed to empathise with the protagonist. That's one of the key features of being the protagonist.

Booker is not necessarily the protagonist of Bioshock Infinite, but he is the narrator; the viewpoint character.

Being in someone's skin =/= being the protagonist.

Plaintiff wrote...

Who we empathize with is highly subjective, so it's not a good measure for determining protagonist-hood.

No it isn't. It's not subjective. The writer can greatly influence who we empathize, by describing certain characters and their emotions in greater detail than the other characters, by putting more focus on them.

We get to experience Elizabeth and her emotions to a much greater extent then Booker, who's face we don't even get to see.

Plaintiff wrote...

In the case of Bioshock Infinite, it's clearly Booker's story. Elizabeth plays a lot of different roles in Bioshock Infinite, but protagonist isn't one, as far as I understand the term. Elizabeth's importance is mostly derived from her connection to Booker. She's only in the story in the first place because Booker needs her in order to acheive his goals, and it eventuallly transpires that her importance to the narrative entirely derives from her connection to Booker.

This is not true at all. It's actually EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. Booker's importance to the narrative entirely derives from his connection to Elizabeth (which we discover near the end of the story).

Without Elizabeth, there would be no story. She basically IS the story of BioShock Infinite.

Would the story of BioShock Infinite work with some other random bloke? Yes, it would. It would not be as interesting, but the story could still work.

Would the story of BioShock Infinite work without Elizabeth? Nope. The story would completely fall apart and there would basically not be a story left.

Plaintiff wrote...

To bring up Sherlock again;

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

I disagree. In the stories where Watson appears, he's defintely the protagonist. The stories follow him primarily, and he often takes it upon himself to do detective work without Holmes, who often goes missing, or is concealing himself from Watson and others, either hiding or in disguise, until he emerges to solve the crime with the clues that Watson has gathered. Most of the time, the mystery is not just "who committed the murder?", but also "where the hell did Holmes go now?".

Holmes is more like a mentor character, imparting his knowledge and skills onto a protege.

I think the same thing applies to Sherlock and Watson as to Booker and Elizabeth.

Replace Watson with some other random bloke and there would still be a story, replace Sherlock with some other random bloke and the story would fall apart.

Sherlock Holmes and all of the spin-offs (BBC's Sherlock is my favorite TV show!) is clearly about Sherlock, not about Watson. 


I mean lets get one thing clear here; regardless whether we agree on the terminology or not (because honestly, I don't really care about the terminology or whether we call Booker or Watson the "viewpoint character" or "the protagonist" or whatever), I assume we both agree that Sherlock Holmes is primarily about Sherlock and Bioshock Infinite is primarily about Elizabeth?

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 02 novembre 2013 - 10:39 .

[nos_astra]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Just a comment, but no one made the assertion that a different character would be the one that gives the final speech or anything like that.

In DAO it was not the Warden who gave that final speech, though. Probably because the Warden had no voice. It reminds me how there were discussions about whether it was appropriate for the two possible characters to do that speech. King!Alistair worked better than Anora or Warden!Alistair but it was possible. Obviously such a speech could be given by anyone with a high enough rank/reputation.

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

[Wulfram]

I don't have a problem with Aragorn getting the big speech while my PC Frodo throws the ring into Mt Doom. Or throws Loghain/Gollum into Mt Doom as the case may be.

[Ieldra]

On the subject of speeches. If the character I play is going to give a speech, then I want to control what's in that speech. Giving me the choice between two groan-worthy options is not enough. I'm fine with someone else giving one - if there must be one, which I contest - if that means my character isn't derailed. DAO was very much OK. The speech was decent, too (though Anora didn't quite have the voice), as opposed to the one in ME3.

[Lokiwithrope]

I hope the antagonist isn't named Trevor.

[Xilizhra]

Ieldra2 wrote...

On the subject of speeches. If the character I play is going to give a speech, then I want to control what's in that speech. Giving me the choice between two groan-worthy options is not enough. I'm fine with someone else giving one - if there must be one, which I contest - if that means my character isn't derailed. DAO was very much OK. The speech was decent, too (though Anora didn't quite have the voice), as opposed to the one in ME3.

While ME3's speech wasn't my favorite by any means, I thought it was still better than DAO's, although this might be just because I found Anora's voice absurdly terrible. Also, her being in armor when she never shows any warriorlike tendencies before or after that scene feels kind of silly; I might buy her being a rogue, but at least Howe wore properly leather armor for his class.

[Br3admax]

Xilizhra wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

On the subject of speeches. If the character I play is going to give a speech, then I want to control what's in that speech. Giving me the choice between two groan-worthy options is not enough. I'm fine with someone else giving one - if there must be one, which I contest - if that means my character isn't derailed. DAO was very much OK. The speech was decent, too (though Anora didn't quite have the voice), as opposed to the one in ME3.

While ME3's speech wasn't my favorite by any means, I thought it was still better than DAO's, although this might be just because I found Anora's voice absurdly terrible. Also, her being in armor when she never shows any warriorlike tendencies before or after that scene feels kind of silly; I might buy her being a rogue, but at least Howe wore properly leather armor for his class.

Loghain tells you that she learned swordplay from an early age. 

[Xilizhra]

Br3ad wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

On the subject of speeches. If the character I play is going to give a speech, then I want to control what's in that speech. Giving me the choice between two groan-worthy options is not enough. I'm fine with someone else giving one - if there must be one, which I contest - if that means my character isn't derailed. DAO was very much OK. The speech was decent, too (though Anora didn't quite have the voice), as opposed to the one in ME3.

While ME3's speech wasn't my favorite by any means, I thought it was still better than DAO's, although this might be just because I found Anora's voice absurdly terrible. Also, her being in armor when she never shows any warriorlike tendencies before or after that scene feels kind of silly; I might buy her being a rogue, but at least Howe wore properly leather armor for his class.

Loghain tells you that she learned swordplay from an early age. 

Shame that the quote's stuck that far in the back, as I haven't visited a spared Loghain in years, but very well.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Xilizhra wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

On the subject of speeches. If the character I play is going to give a speech, then I want to control what's in that speech. Giving me the choice between two groan-worthy options is not enough. I'm fine with someone else giving one - if there must be one, which I contest - if that means my character isn't derailed. DAO was very much OK. The speech was decent, too (though Anora didn't quite have the voice), as opposed to the one in ME3.

While ME3's speech wasn't my favorite by any means, I thought it was still better than DAO's, although this might be just because I found Anora's voice absurdly terrible. Also, her being in armor when she never shows any warriorlike tendencies before or after that scene feels kind of silly; I might buy her being a rogue, but at least Howe wore properly leather armor for his class.

That's why you don't make Anora queen.

[Xilizhra]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

On the subject of speeches. If the character I play is going to give a speech, then I want to control what's in that speech. Giving me the choice between two groan-worthy options is not enough. I'm fine with someone else giving one - if there must be one, which I contest - if that means my character isn't derailed. DAO was very much OK. The speech was decent, too (though Anora didn't quite have the voice), as opposed to the one in ME3.

While ME3's speech wasn't my favorite by any means, I thought it was still better than DAO's, although this might be just because I found Anora's voice absurdly terrible. Also, her being in armor when she never shows any warriorlike tendencies before or after that scene feels kind of silly; I might buy her being a rogue, but at least Howe wore properly leather armor for his class.

That's why you don't make Anora queen.

Alistair's isn't fantastic either. I find basically all of Shepard's speeches better; Alistair just lacks the bizarre screechiness of Anora.

[Estelindis]

How much power do people think the protagonist / player character should have to effect the outcome of the game's plot? That must have a large part to play when it comes to the types of endings that are available.

I think that the protagonist should have a lot of power to affect the outcome - not raw power, but situational power, kinda like a fulcrum. However, I think that this doesn't mean that all outcomes that the protagonist would want should be available. What is possible should be determined in part by the world and characters.

Modifié par Estelindis, 02 novembre 2013 - 04:10 .

[Xilizhra]

Estelindis wrote...

How much power do people think the protagonist / player character should have to effect the outcome of the game's plot? That must have a large part to play when it comes to the types of endings that are available.

I think that the protagonist should have a lot of power to effect the outcome - not raw power, but situational power, kinda like a fulcrum. However, I think that this doesn't mean that all outcomes that the protagonist would want should be available. What is possible should be determined in part by the world and characters.

Agreed, more or less. Certainly, some things should be beyond the protagonist's power.

[The Heretic of Time]

Xilizhra wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

On the subject of speeches. If the character I play is going to give a speech, then I want to control what's in that speech. Giving me the choice between two groan-worthy options is not enough. I'm fine with someone else giving one - if there must be one, which I contest - if that means my character isn't derailed. DAO was very much OK. The speech was decent, too (though Anora didn't quite have the voice), as opposed to the one in ME3.

While ME3's speech wasn't my favorite by any means, I thought it was still better than DAO's, although this might be just because I found Anora's voice absurdly terrible. Also, her being in armor when she never shows any warriorlike tendencies before or after that scene feels kind of silly; I might buy her being a rogue, but at least Howe wore properly leather armor for his class.

That's why you don't make Anora queen.

Alistair's isn't fantastic either. I find basically all of Shepard's speeches better; Alistair just lacks the bizarre screechiness of Anora.

Tbh Shepard's speeches were some of the dumbest and most facepalm-worthy speeches I've ever seen in movies or video-games. It's even worse if you play as femShep. I'm sorry, but Jennifer Hale just doesn't know how to do an epic military speech.

[Plaintiff]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
Yes, we are supposed to empathise with the protagonist. That's one of the key features of being the protagonist.

No, not always. In many narratives, the protagonist is a despicable person who is meant to be hated. The protagonist can be the villain of the story.

Booker is not necessarily the protagonist of Bioshock Infinite, but he is the narrator; the viewpoint character.

Being in someone's skin =/= being the protagonist.

Booker is also the chief actor, which makes him the protagonist. Elizabeth barely acts at all. She is almost entirely passive. Her narrative function is to provide a goal for Booker/the player, and that's about it.

No it isn't. It's not subjective. The writer can greatly influence who we empathize, by describing certain characters and their emotions in greater detail than the other characters, by putting more focus on them.

It's absolutely subjective. Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. It's  always going to be subjective, because no matter how hard a writer tries to 'influence', some readers will not respond. That's just how it works.

There are protagonists I despise and utterly fail to empathise or connect with. That does not make them any less the protagonists of their stories.

We get to experience Elizabeth and her emotions to a much greater extent then Booker, who's face we don't even get to see.

Yes, because Elizabeth is the focal character. Not the protagonist. The audience fixates on her because Booker needs her to obtain his goal.

This is not true at all. It's actually EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. Booker's importance to the narrative entirely derives from his connection to Elizabeth (which we discover near the end of the story).

No, if Elizabeth wasn't Booker's daughter, Comstock wouldn't have taken her to begin with.

Without Elizabeth, there would be no story. She basically IS the story of BioShock Infinite.

In the same way that Princess Peach is the story of Mario, I guess.

Would the story of BioShock Infinite work with some other random bloke? Yes, it would. It would not be as interesting, but the story could still work.

Would the story of BioShock Infinite work without Elizabeth? Nope. The story would completely fall apart and there would basically not be a story left.

No it really couldn't. If Booker is replaced with some random guy, then the entire connection with Comstock goes out the window. The revelation at the end never happens, and there's no possible resolution to the story because only Booker can make the choice that needs to be made in order to end things.

Elizabeth is a stock damsel in distress, until the end, where she becomes an information dispensary. She doesn't need a connection to Booker for her role in the story to still work. Hell, Lutece could do Elizabeth's job already.

I think the same thing applies to Sherlock and Watson as to Booker and Elizabeth.

Replace Watson with some other random bloke and there would still be a story, replace Sherlock with some other random bloke and the story would fall apart.

Sherlock Holmes and all of the spin-offs (BBC's Sherlock is my favorite TV show!) is clearly about Sherlock, not about Watson.

I mean lets get one thing clear here; regardless whether we agree on the terminology or not (because honestly, I don't really care about the terminology or whether we call Booker or Watson the "viewpoint character" or "the protagonist" or whatever), I assume we both agree that Sherlock Holmes is primarily about Sherlock and Bioshock Infinite is primarily about Elizabeth?

No. Bioshock Infinite is primarily about Booker and his quest to pay his debt. Elizabeth is just a means to that end. In many ways her role could be filled by an inanimate object.

I have no idea what the adaptations of Sherlock Holmes are doing; most of them butcher the source material completely, but the original stories are about Watson learning to become a detective. As I said before, in several of them (most famously the Hound of Baskervilles), Holmes is absent throughout the bulk of the investigation, until he emerges like a deus ex machina to save the day, using the clues that Watson collected. How can a story be primarily about someone who literally isn't there?

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

[Xilizhra]

Tbh Shepard's speeches were some of the dumbest and most facepalm-worthy speeches I've ever seen in movies or video-games. It's even worse if you play as femShep. I'm sorry, but Jennifer Hale just doesn't know how to do an epic military speech.

Ah, opinions. I've never found them bad, and only ever play Femshep. But I also never take Renegade options.

[Star fury]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

On the subject of speeches. If the character I play is going to give a speech, then I want to control what's in that speech. Giving me the choice between two groan-worthy options is not enough. I'm fine with someone else giving one - if there must be one, which I contest - if that means my character isn't derailed. DAO was very much OK. The speech was decent, too (though Anora didn't quite have the voice), as opposed to the one in ME3.

While ME3's speech wasn't my favorite by any means, I thought it was still better than DAO's, although this might be just because I found Anora's voice absurdly terrible. Also, her being in armor when she never shows any warriorlike tendencies before or after that scene feels kind of silly; I might buy her being a rogue, but at least Howe wore properly leather armor for his class.

That's why you don't make Anora queen.

Pretty much. At least Cailan made a decent battlecry in Ostagar battle. Alistair's speech was good too.  

[Plaintiff]

Speeches are corny and awful most of the time, regardless of how they're delivered.

[The Heretic of Time]

Plaintiff wrote...

No, not always. In many narratives, the protagonist is a despicable person who is meant to be hated. The protagonist can be the villain of the story.

You're confusing the word "empathy"  with "sympathy".

Yes, we do ALWAYS feel empathy for the protagonist (else the story would be super boring), but we don't always feel sympathy for the protagonist. Like in you example, if the protagonist is a despicable person, you will feel empathy for him, but you will most likely not feel sympathy for him.

Plaintiff wrote...

Booker is also the chief actor, which makes him the protagonist. Elizabeth barely acts at all. She is almost entirely passive. Her narrative function is to provide a goal for Booker/the player, and that's about it.

Not true at all. Did you even play the game? It's Elizabeth who does all the important stuff, Booker merely acts as her bodyguard.

At first, Booker seems to be the chief actor, but the tables are quickly turned as soon as your plan to take the zepplin is sabotaged after which you start to rely on Elizabeth's tearing powers more and more. It's from that moment on that Elizabeth becomes more and more the chief actor, while Booker more and more goes along with whatever the heck is happening to them. At the end of Bioshock Infinite, the roles are completely reversed. Elizabeth now holds all the cards and takes all the actions. Booker is completely passive and completely goes along with Elizabeth and what she tells him.

Plaintiff wrote...

It's absolutely subjective. Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. It's  always going to be subjective, because no matter how hard a writer tries to 'influence', some readers will not respond. That's just how it works.

If the reader does not repond he will most likely not like the story and put it aside. That's how it works. Empathy for the protagonist is key in order for a story to be interesting.

Plaintiff wrote...

Yes, because Elizabeth is the focal character. Not the protagonist. The audience fixates on her because Booker needs her to obtain his goal.

It goes the other way around too. Elizabeth needs Booker to obtain her goal. They need each other.

Elizabeth's goals aren't any less important in BS:I than Booker's goals and in fact, halfway through the story, Booker almost completely throws aside his own goals and completely focusses on Elizabeth's goals instead. He is there to help her, not the other way around.

Plaintiff wrote...

This is not true at all. It's actually EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. Booker's importance to the narrative entirely derives from his connection to Elizabeth (which we discover near the end of the story).

No, if Elizabeth wasn't Booker's daughter, Comstock wouldn't have taken her to begin with.

Nope, sorry, you're wrong.

The fact that Booker is Elizabeth's father doesn't even play a role until the very end. It certainly adds more drama ot the story, but it's NOT a KEY factor of the story.

Replace Booker with some other random bloke who can shoot stuff and the narrative would still work. The story would still be in place. The Lutece twins could basically have chosen anyone with sufficient skills to rescue Elizabeth. They just happen to choose Booker because he was the ideal man for the job and because the narrative is obviously more dramatic and interesting this way.

But you can't replace Elizabeth. She is KEY to the story. She is the most important character which everything revolves around. Replace her, and the story would completely fall apart.

Plaintiff wrote...

Without Elizabeth, there would be no story. She basically IS the story of BioShock Infinite.

In the same way that Princess Peach is the story of Mario, I guess.

Not at all. Again; did you even play past the first half of the game? I get the feeling you haven't.

Plaintiff wrote...

I have no idea what the adaptations of Sherlock Holmes are doing; most of them butcher the source material completely, but the original stories are about Watson learning to become a detective. As I said before, in several of them (most famously the Hound of Baskervilles), Holmes is absent throughout the bulk of the investigation, until he emerges like a deus ex machina to save the day, using the clues that Watson collected. How can a story be primarily about someone who literally isn't there?

I've read the original stories, I've seen most of the film adaptations and I have seen the entire BBC series.

I also know for a fact that there are multiple books written from Sherlock's perspective, no Watson present. So I could return the question; How can a story be primarily about someone who literally isn't there?

I have the answer to that question though; It can. It's easy. Watch Dragon Ball Z for instance (I know, not the best story, but it serves as a good example for this). Son Goku is the protagonist of Dragon Ball Z, yet he literally isn't there plenty of times in the story. There are even entire arcs in which Son Goku is death and doesn't participate in the battles. Does that mean that Son Goku isn't the protagonist of Dragonball Z? No it doesn't. He clearly is the protagonist of Dragonball Z, everyone knows that.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 02 novembre 2013 - 03:50 .

[Wulfram]

My main problem with the DA:O speech was that it was all about saying how awesome the PC was, which seemed inappropriate. Don't know if they felt the need to compensate for the PC not delivering it.

[The Heretic of Time]

Plaintiff wrote...

Speeches are corny and awful most of the time, regardless of how they're delivered.

First time I actually agree with you.

Though I thought this was a decent speech with proper delivery.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 02 novembre 2013 - 04:01 .

[Steelcan]

On the subject of speeches, the best speech in ME or DA imo is Kirrahe's on Earth, so not a lot of people get to see it.

I find Shepard's mostly cringe inducing, its worse for FemShep than MaleShep, but its still not stellar.

And Hawke well...... you know.

Modifié par Steelcan, 02 novembre 2013 - 03:54 .