214 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

That they are. But it's by no means foolish to believe in something because it's not certain.

I would disagree.  I see no value in belief at all.

 

There is knowledge, and there is uncertainty.  There is no need for anything in between.

[Bob from Accounting]

That's dumb.

 

If I have a 99% chance to win a million bucks and a 1% chance to lose a penny, it's a good idea. I don't need to be 100% certain.

 

Probability exists whether you'd like it to or not.

[Allan Schumacher]

I would disagree.  I see no value in belief at all.

 

There is knowledge, and there is uncertainty.  There is no need for anything in between.

 

Why do you spend your time on this forum, as opposed to others?  I was always under the impression that you held a belief that a BioWare game had a greater probability of giving you something that you want.

[Allan Schumacher]

Well, the first it seems like Meredith would have had it covered.  The second seems kind of meaningless when the family is all disappeared, dead, a warden, a templar or Gamlen

 

While I suppose, yes, if Hawke hadn't reestablished the family presence in Kirkwall, then it's possible that the other bad stuff didn't happen.  But that comes across a bit like suggesting that the Habsburgs didn't really accomplish anything of significance because ultimately their house died out.

[elyu]

IMO video game protags need to be special or the game will be boring. I don't play them to experience a normal life (this is relative to the setting ofc). The only thing that bothers me is if the characters are mary sues.

And Hawke definitely is special despite what some say. He may start out as an ordinary Fereldan but that changes very quickly.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Why do you spend your time on this forum, as opposed to others?

Primarily because I enjoy it.

I was always under the impression that you held a belief that a BioWare game had a greater probability of giving you something that you want.

I do appear to perceive that as more likely with BioWare compared to other game developers. I suspect this is because I see an avenue by which BioWare could do so, while with other games I do not.

And because the features I request are features BioWare has actually offered previously, I have evidence that BioWare can actually offer those features, something I do not have for other developers.

But that final step of holding that likelihood to be true - of believing it - I don't think I do that.

[Wulfram]

While I suppose, yes, if Hawke hadn't reestablished the family presence in Kirkwall, then it's possible that the other bad stuff didn't happen.  But that comes across a bit like suggesting that the Habsburgs didn't really accomplish anything of significance because ultimately their house died out.

 

I wasn't intending to imply causation, just that as an achievement it's ephemeral because none of the Hawkes are in a position to enjoy it.  The Hawkes lasted 6 years, while the Hapsburgs lasted more than 6 centuries, and still have descendants sitting the thrones of Europe.

[CronoDragoon]

I'd have to agree that the rise of the Hawke family in DA2 isn't meaningful, at least if we frame meaningful in terms of "the PC accomplishing something that satisfies the player." Hawke himself leaves Kirkwall soon after DA2, with the rest of the family either dead or gone as well.

 

Personally I don't frame DA2's story meaning in terms of success or failure. I see the game two ways, as 1) taking part in an important event in Thedas, and 2) a character story about someone trying to secure his family's future and losing his family in the process. Sure, ultimately this means Hawke "fails" what I see to be his primary goal throughout DA2, but it also provides for fantastic character growth, through the loss of his family and the evolution of his secondary family: his companions. To me DA2 rejected the traditional means through which the player derives value from the story of a game, and I enjoyed it for that. A bit more divergence would have helped more at the end (something as simple as siding with Meredith means you don't fight her. Perhaps you can even destroy the idol with her surviving).

[Mistic]

Personally I don't frame DA2's story meaning in terms of success or failure. I see the game two ways, as 1) taking part in an important event in Thedas, and 2) a character story about someone trying to secure his family's future and losing his family in the process. Sure, ultimately this means Hawke "fails" what I see to be his primary goal throughout DA2, but it also provides for fantastic character growth, through the loss of his family and the evolution of his secondary family: his companions. To me DA2 rejected the traditional means through which the player derives value from the story of a game, and I enjoyed it for that.

 

I understood the game in the same way. Still, I think it failed to deliver that meaningful story and was unbalanced in the end, as if DA2 didn't know if it wanted to be a personal story or an epic story. Ok, maybe I'm biased because I still remember when I played Planescape: Torment (another Special Snowflake, but with a twist), but I think DA2 could have done better in that regard.

[Mockingword]

Why do you trust peopel to do this? A doctor to operate you? A policeman to protect you? A fireman to put out a fire?

 

Because they proven themselves and because it's their job.
 

You don't have to be "special" for people to trust you.

You have to be reliable. And available.

None of those are at all on the same level as "saving the world, defeating the ultimate evil, etc."

 

There's little to no way of "proving" yourself capable in such scenarios, unless you've done it before, which is unlikely, and it can't be your "job", because it doesn't happen regularly enough to provide a reliable income.

 

SO you pretty much have to be special, yes.

[Roninbarista]

I had to figure out what a special snowflake really was in order to respond to the OP. The definition for special snowflake seems to be fluid with each person. I understand it applies to a person who believes they are an exception or special when nothing really warrants the specialness.

It really doesn't define the Inquisitor, does it? Having a unique skill or ability if a far cry from having a charmed life.

[Zets09]

Is closing the rifts really a special power? I remember avernus or sophia from wardens keep closing the rifts by the end if you help them

[Roninbarista]

Is closing the rifts really a special power? I remember avernus or sophia from wardens keep closing the rifts by the end if you help them

 

Not sure. Justice also had the power to close veil tears in Awakenings. He temporarily shared the power with the Wardens in the Blackmarsh.

 

Perhaps it's uncommon to most of Thedas.

 

I may be wrong, but when mages try to summon or open the veil, there's a huge chance demons show up.  

[ames4u]

When you think about it-the MC is always going to be a special snowflake no matter how epic or average

Joe they happen to be. This is due to the fact that they will be accomplishing nearly impossible tasks.

 

Oh those two factions have been warring since they were in diapers and you got them to play nice!

Those super deformed tar monsters are impervious to weaponry but the epic MC found the magic

doo-dad to make them vulnerable!! etc.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That's dumb.

If I have a 99% chance to win a million bucks and a 1% chance to lose a penny, it's a good idea. I don't need to be 100% certain.

Probability exists whether you'd like it to or not.

Probability has nothing to do with it. You don't need to believe in the outcome in order for the likelihood of that outcome to drive your behaviour.

Let's change your example and make the odds 50-50 while keeping the same prizes and costs. Now you have no idea whether you're going to win, but it's still a good idea to make the bet.

Do you see where I'm going with this? You don't need to believe in the outcome for your perception of the odds to drive your behaviour.

[Ieldra]

About the OP's question:

Thinking about this got surprisingly complicated as I tried to find a pattern to the kind of being special I like and those I don't. Not sure if the following will capture things correctly, but here we go:

(1) As a rule, I like my characters to be exceptional. However, I need to feel that they acquired that exceptionalness legitimately. What exactly "legitimately" is, that's where things get complicated.

(2) As I see it, almost all protagonists of stories dealing with events bigger than normal life are exceptional in some way. This is because they are required to be exceptional if they are to influence the story events in a non-random way as a single person. Even if they started normal and "only" revealed exceptional capabilities in regular skills in the story, they are special.

(3) It doesn't matter at all to me whether my characters' exceptionalness manifests as abilities beyond the normal human template or not, as long as...well, see above... they have them legitimately.

(4) To approach the question of legitimacy, let's consider ME's Shepard. Shepard is special in two legitimate ways and three illegitimate ones. The legitimate ones: (1) they are physically more capable than any other human because they were reconstructed with biosynthetic fusion. (2) They understand Prothean culture because of the Cipher. The illegitimate ones: (1) They are treated as super-capable leaders without actually expressing any sort of exceptional leadership abilities in the games. This is an informed trait. (2) They were brought back from the dead in a process deliberately kept mysterious. This appears as a trait that had no purpose except to make them more special. (3) They were treated as unique by the Catalyst and the Leviathans with no justification by the story at all.

(5) Another aspect of my take on legitimacy: I usually feel that the typical superhero doesn't have any legitimate exceptionalness. They usually come across to me as "incarnations of powers with some token traits for characterization".

(6) While I like and acknowledge exceptionalness, I almost never think of my characters as unique, except in the way everyone is. So if the story claims uniqueness, this, as a rule, comes across as illegitimate unless there is an extremely convincing justification. Note that even a character as special as BG2's Bhaalspawn was not unique.

So what's the pattern here? I'm not really sure. Perhaps it's all YMMV. As a rule, I like characters being exceptional because I like stories with themes of ascension. What I don't like is the kind of innate uniqueness typical for savior types. I need to know that others could've reasonably gotten there as well, given the right circumstances.

[wright1978]

I have no issue with the 'special snowflake' concept as long as it is grounded in the story. I'm completely unshocked by the notion that the inquisitor will have been imbued(most likely as part of the disaster from which he/she is the only survivor) with a special ability that relates to the plot & elevates him/her to a position where they can influence events.

[CronoDragoon]

To approach the question of legitimacy, let's consider ME's Shepard. Shepard is special in two legitimate ways and three illegitimate ones. The legitimate ones: (1) they are physically more capable than any other human because they were reconstructed with biosynthetic fusion. (2) They understand Prothean culture because of the Cipher. The illegitimate ones: (1) They are treated as super-capable leaders without actually expressing any sort of exceptional leadership abilities in the games. This is an informed trait. (2) They were brought back from the dead in a process deliberately kept mysterious. This appears as a trait that had no purpose except to make them more special. (3) They were treated as unique by the Catalyst and the Leviathans with no justification by the story at all.

 

Even then, the reconstruction doesn't happen until ME2, which leaves legitimate #2 without justification. Why is Shepard's mind able to handle the Cipher? No explanation.

 

Perhaps if BioWare had started ME1 with Shepard being reconstructed (not necessarily Lazarus) using new biosynthetic techniques, you could both have a justification for his apparent exceptionality and have a stronger Synthesis vibe.

 

Myself I enjoy retrospective exceptionality the most. I can't remember which game it was, but one exchange that always stuck with me was the hero saying, "Others could have done what I did." And the response was, "Yes, but no one else did." I find that beautiful in its simplicity; it might be called a historical view on exceptionality. Moreover, doesn't it mean more when the hero isn't unique and still manages to save the day? The problematic question with the Chosen One trope is that a good deal of the hero's success is enabled by abilities outside their own control (ie, Harry Potter surviving Voldemort because of his mother's love). If there isn't anything inherently special about the hero, then you can assign more of their success to cleverness, combat prowess, etc. Things the hero might actually be proud of.

 

But aside from "specialness" is exceptionality which, as you say, is pretty central to heroes. It's especially important if you have a flawed hero: too many flaws and the audience will have little reason to invest in them without some positive. Usually writers will give the hero one thing they excel at. Having a reclusive druggie loser be an excellent hacker for example. Other people can be excellent hackers, of course. But they don't do what the PC does in this story. That's all the special snowflake I need.

[Aimi]

I also want to point out that the concept of the Cipher is inherently ridiculous anyway.

[Tevinter Soldier]

It depends, the story has to fit the mould for the character.

 

Your either a special snow flake or your an accidental hero.

 

take oblivion as a great example your no special snow flake your just a above average guy/girl/lizard/cat person get thrown into the middle of everything by mere chance you get a lot of things done save the world….. but your not the special snow flake thats Martin Septim its he who defeats the big bad.

 

why is this so? because it has to be believable, RPG's are rarely about out smarting your opponent so in a combat situation if your enemies a big bad you need the good guy going toe to toe. If just anyone can do it then the opponent isn't nearly as important as made out to be.

 

Likewise If your a king or in charge of an army this needs to be reflected you need an army people bowing before you or its just not believable and i think this is where people draw issue with special snow flake syndrome.

 

for example: If you take out a reaper and forewarned everyone it defies belief that when you show up again and say guys! theres more reapers on their way it beggars belief that you wouldn't get the backing and support you require.  but scale it down as well you save a town this should be reflected not just by the quest giver but by the whole town, vendors give you discounts and freebies people who used to give you the cold shoulder are now more accepting and so on.

 

Likewise If you single handedly take down an immortal army factions should listen to you at least offer you platitudes lie to your face and tell you they will do what ever you ask or take on board your concerns. If your a special snow flake it needs to be reflected. I mean seriously you wipe out a massive threat by yourself, it must be treated with the respect it deserves you don't tell someone like that NO at the very least you lie and then try to have that person killed.

 

the biggest gripe is that the bigger your achievements the greater the impact on your surroundings have to have.

DA:O finds an almost perfect middle ground here, your no special snow flake but you are part of a faction of SS's and although they have great power theres bugger all around so you rally support and use that support to fell the big bad.

 

After that you BECOME A SNOWFLAKE and you get the title and respect for it.

DA:2 struggles a bit with deciding if your a hero or just some guy, you get the tittle but not so much the respect. personally i feel it because the story is told from anthers perspective and the passage of time wasn't hammered home enough. I mean 7 years and my characters life pretty much doesn't develop the events feel like month not years, there's just something lacking.

 

It's almost like your a half snowflake.

[Bob from Accounting]

(4) To approach the question of legitimacy, let's consider ME's Shepard. Shepard is special in two legitimate ways and three illegitimate ones. The legitimate ones: (1) they are physically more capable than any other human because they were reconstructed with biosynthetic fusion. (2) They understand Prothean culture because of the Cipher. The illegitimate ones: (1) They are treated as super-capable leaders without actually expressing any sort of exceptional leadership abilities in the games. This is an informed trait. (2) They were brought back from the dead in a process deliberately kept mysterious. This appears as a trait that had no purpose except to make them more special. (3) They were treated as unique by the Catalyst and the Leviathans with no justification by the story at all.

 

That is just utterly, completely, ridiculous. I'm struggling where to even begin with this pile of ignorance and sloppiness.

 

First of all, you're pulling baseless and contradicted assumptions left and right. Never once is it indicated that Shepard is particularly skilled or strong because of Lazarus. In fact, a great deal of evidence points the exact opposite direction. Such as Shepard being just as successful combat-wise in ME 1? Since as Miranda's repeated comments of Shepard being brought back exactly the same way? When or where is it ever said even once that Shepard is made significantly stronger by Lazarus?

 

Second, any notion that Shepard is 'made special' by Lazarus or the cipher in-story is a fabricated delusion. I literally cannot think of one single instance where anyone so much as comments that Shepard is special or valuable because of either of such things. Not one. Do you have a single quote to indicated this anything more than a hallucination on your part?

 

Thirdly, the idea that Shepard is 'made special' because the Leviathan and Catalyst treat them as unique with no basis in the story...where to begin with this slap in the face to reasoning? First of all, do you even grasp how ridiculous and pointlessly recursive this is? You're saying they're special and to prove it, it's because these people treat them as special. It makes no sense. Secondly, the fact that Shepard plays a great role in the Mass Effect universe is absolutely irrefutable. The Leviathan and Catalyst has ever reason to treat them as special. There's no end of justification in the story. Thirdly, Shepard's interactions with the Leviathan and Catalyst aren't so much as mentioned by anyone. At all. Ever. It never happens. Not once does any character ever say Shepard is special because they were treated as special because the Leviathan and Catalyst treated them as special. Forthly, one of these encounters is in a DLC and is one is at the absolute very end of the trilogy. Shepard's reputation, both in-story and out of it, has been overwhelmingly established by this point. It's utterly absurd to imagine that Shepard wasn't considered special by fans or characters until the Catalyst and Leviathan came along.

[Susty Randusky]

That is just utterly, completely,  ridiculous.
 
First of all, you're pulling baseless assumptions left and right. Never once is it indicated that Shepard is particularly skilled or strong because of Lazarus. In fact, a great deal of evidence points the exact opposite direction. Such as Shepard being as successful in ME 1? Since as Miranda's repeated comments of Shepard being brought back exactly the same way?
 
Second, any notion that Shepard is 'made special' by Lazarus or the cipher in-story is a fabricated delusion. I literally cannot think of one single instance where anyone so much as comments that Shepard is special or valuable because of either of such things. Not one. Do you have a single quote to indicated this anything more than a hallucination on your part?

Which makes Shepard a............special snowflake

[Bob from Accounting]

I'm trying to actually make a few points here, so why don't you take your clown antics elsewhere? This is obviously above your head.

[AlanC9]

Even then, the reconstruction doesn't happen until ME2, which leaves legitimate #2 without justification. Why is Shepard's mind able to handle the Cipher? No explanation.
 

Well, this just requires a reformulation of point 2; Shepard has unusual strength of mind that lets him handle the Cipher. Not unprecedented, since Saren has it too.

[DarthLaxian]

I'd rather be a nobody that fashions his epicnessocity through the game's plot, not through a previous history or initial event.

 

I'm generally okay with what Bioware does, sure, but I find something compelling about fully willingly stepping into the future, rather than having it chosen for my character by the external.

 

It's like.. I'd prefer if Mass Effect never got the Prothian vision stuck in his head at all, sometimes. Sometimes.

 

you mean a classic heroe's journey? - yeah, count me in

 

not that I have anything against special talents (but more along the lines of being a bright star among many - meaning my character is more intelligent/dedicated/talented then the rest, rather than having one singular talent (like say the mutants in X-Men, more like what we have, we have magic in DA and every mage character can learn all magic, you decide what and when your character learns something, but there is no starting out as say a spirit-healer and being unable to push your combat spells for example), but I rather forge my own path, too (getting your position because you have a certain singular talent no one else has feels like cheating...because you are not replacable, getting there on your own merrit makes it more exciting!)

 

greetings LAX

ps: learning special skills along the way, like "power of blood" type stuff (from the research Avernus does at Soldiers Peak) that's cool