257 réponses à ce sujet

[leaguer of one]

Okay, can some one explain to me how the Warden,Shepard and Hawke are Considered to be a Mary Sue/Stu character? None of them had a easy time with their probelms or had everything just go their way. They had to work for their sucesses and even then they had to sacrifice something. A mary sue would have been having no trouble and people falling at thier feet in admiration.

Because they were successful at doing what they did which no one else was able to do regardless to how difficult, mind breaking and soulbreaking it was to do it.

 

You know, something people can't see that most heroes in stories do.

[Knightstar2001]

Thats hard to agrue considering that no other character is granted some of the chances that the main character is or allowed to do the stuff the main character does. It could be agrued that Alistar could have done all of the stuff that the Warden did. Considering that there is Nothing special about Hawke or Shepard besides the events surrounding them, They both could have been replaced with someone else.

[leaguer of one]

Thats hard to agrue considering that no other character is granted some of the chances that the main character is or allowed to do the stuff the main character does. It could be agrued that Alistar could have done all of the stuff that the Warden did. Considering that there is Nothing special about Hawke or Shepard besides the events surrounding them, They both could have been replaced with someone else.

1. I was being sarcastic.

2.We already know what would happen if Alistar was in charge. We would all die.

[ladyoflate]

My own personal list of Mary Sue characters is rather shorter than most in this topic, but that's because for me a true Mary Sue has only one criteria-

 

A Sue is a character whose problems are solved without struggle. A true Sue does not have to strive for anything. She does not work for her power, it does not come with a cost, and the problems which confront her never tax her in solving them. Sues are a function of poor writing and a misunderstanding of the purpose of the story; the idea that the intrigue of the hero or heroine comes from accomplishing a given task, rather than the truth, which is that it is the drama of the hero's STRUGGLE to achieve a goal which makes a story interesting. Whether or not the hero or heroine actually achieves the goal depends on the effect the author wants the story to have, but the struggle is where the drama is.

 

The writer of a Sue does not realize this, and so writes a story devoid of anything interest or appeal because a problem can hardly even be presented before the Sue has already solved it.

 

So, as I said earlier, very few, if any characters listed in this topic, Bioware or otherwise, would qualify under that definition.

 

Man, now I really feel like I wasted my likes for the day, because this is pretty much perfect.

[GrayTimber]

This forum has made me despise this term so much. 

 

The internet as a whole has made me hate this term.

Did you know that there are aspiring writers who are crippled with anxiety over whether or not their characters are Mary-Sues?

 

I can understand why, there's so much animosity that seeps from the term. 

People who use this term, now, make me think that they are nit-pickers.

[Deflagratio]

It only seems like the whole "Mary Sue" thing is an epidemic in gaming because games inherently have a "Failure state", which tends to color one's disposition towards striving for the best possible outcome. Any other outcome seems like another Failure State.

 

At least, that's how I see the problem... The only real solution is to write in a nobody-wins scenario, like Virmire.

[Maiden Crowe]

1.drake heath, on 27 Apr 2014 - 11:38 AM, said:

A Mary Sue is someone in a story who is special and always right for no real reason other than the story says so.

 

That's the major part, because if say, a character is a literal god and can do anything, they wouldn't be a Mary Sue because within the context of their character it makes sense they'd be super special and omniscient.

 

You can tell if a character is a Mary Sue by asking why they're so special and why they're always right.

 

If the answer is anything beyond because the story says so than they might not be a Mary Sue*.

 

 

*But this doesn't mean they still can't be a badly written or contrived character.

 

While I don't believe that is the true definition of Mary Sue (though it usually is an aspect of a Mary Sue character) the Warden is always right and is always proven right, no matter what they do everyone usually accepts the warden actions as necessary even if the Warden murders their only son.

 

I'm not sure the Warden's popularity has anything to do with possible Mary Sueness, which is a fine debate. I think the Warden's popularity might be simply because s/he was the protag of the better of two games, of course the latter is also a fine debate.

In the spirit of the convo however, let's look more at the character of the Warden. While always winning in the end, the Warden can go in many directions along the way that it's hard to attribute Mary Sueness to that character. Especially so if your big criteria for Mary Sueness is not being flawed /or having a happy ending.

 

This is like arguing with a brick wall, if you really want to debate the issue the least you could do is address my points as they stand instead of the ones you made up, I never said the "happy ending" was required for a Mary Sue story and even stated that a common trend in the Mary Sue stories is the heroic sacrifice.

 

I am not going to even bother with the rest of your post until you go back and re-read what has already been said.

[leaguer of one]

It only seems like the whole "Mary Sue" thing is an epidemic in gaming because games inherently have a "Failure state", which tends to color one's disposition towards striving for the best possible outcome. Any other outcome seems like another Failure State.

 

At least, that's how I see the problem... The only real solution is to write in a nobody-wins scenario, like Virmire.

ME3  did that. The fans lit the forums on fire.

[Innsmouth Dweller]

i don't really understand why PC is a Mary Sue. because player has to reload the game multiple times to not fail a quest/battle and the narrative doesn't recognize it as struggle? maybe because it's the romance thing then? all chars are supposed to throw themselves on protagonist like horny rabbits. like when Hawke tries to woo Aveline and she doesn't swoon over him? or maybe it's because it's an RPG and character gains more experience and becomes in fact stronger over time to face more challenging opponents?

 

if PC is indeed a Mary Sue, i'm rather pleased. housewife simulator (i really don't recall any game where PC wasn't a Mary Sue) wouldn't be as fun as epic fantasy/space opera game, methinks.

[leaguer of one]

While I don't believe that is the true definition of Mary Sue (though it usually is an aspect of a Mary Sue character) the Warden is always right and is always proven right, no matter what they do everyone usually accepts the warden actions as necessary even if the Warden murders their only son.

 

 

This is like arguing with a brick wall, if you really want to debate the issue the least you could do is address my points as they stand instead of the ones you made up, I never said the "happy ending" was required for a Mary Sue story and even stated that a common trend in the Mary Sue stories is the heroic sacrifice.

 

I am not going to even bother with the rest of your post until you go back and re-read what has already been said.

 

While I don't believe that is the true definition of Mary Sue (though it usually is an aspect of a Mary Sue character) the Warden is always right and is always proven right, no matter what they do everyone usually accepts the warden actions as necessary even if the Warden murders their only son.

 

 

This is like arguing with a brick wall, if you really want to debate the issue the least you could do is address my points as they stand instead of the ones you made up, I never said the "happy ending" was required for a Mary Sue story and 'even stated that a common trend in the Mary Sue stories is the heroic sacrifice.

 

I am not going to even bother with the rest of your post until you go back and re-read what has already been said.

1. Sorry, but the warden is never proven to be inherently right.What's proven that their choice has some form of validation. Validation does not equal right.There's never an inherently wrong choice, just the best choice available on hand and that still is based on the beliefs of the warden. Like the Conner choice in redcliff if you never did the tower quest as of yet. And there is more than one like that and you do get call out on it.

 

2.Dude he said  more to in that quotes then that.Keep reading.

 

 

Added both quotes are from other people. I just stated them over.

[Darth Krytie]

As I was under the impression that a Mary-Sue (aside from being an inherently problematic term, problematically applied), was wish fulfillment on the 'author's' part...too skillful and lacking in development. Our characters get plenty of development through the games if we wish them to. And I don't know if they're too skillful to be believed. They can't save everyone. If that's even their goal. And they're not always successful in every attempt. It's never beyond the ability to imagine that it might happen. There are plenty of real people in history that have achieved things beyond what the average person could ever hope.

 

So, no. I don't think player characters can ever be mary-sues. I don't actually like the term or the connotation surrounding it. Or the way some people like to use it against others.

[In Exile]

I guess I was just overcome with sadness at the thought of all those spies of a hostile foreign power getting killed. It's not like their leader just trashed my city and vowed to return or anything.

 

I think their goal of working toward the forcible conversion of everyone I love and the eradication of my culture and way of life is commendable. 

[In Exile]

1. I was being sarcastic.

2.We already know what would happen if Alistar was in charge. We would all die.

 

The thing is though, re: Alistair, he basically shows that the only value the Warden actually adds is being amazing at murder. Because he fails, without the Warden, when it comes to the actual murdering darkspawn part. Not the gathering an army part. 

[Clocks4]

I don't know if I agree that Bioware's recent PCs have been Mary Sue's... or Gary Stu's for that matter, depending on which option you took for gender.

 

Shepard was probably the closest, but Shepard was still not perfect.

 

A Mary Sue/Gary Stu would have found a way to save both Kaiden AND Ashley on Virmire. They would have convinced TIM to blow up the Collector Base and to reform his ways and come to Shepard's side. They would have convinced the Star Child/Virtual Ghost Boy to simply take the Reapers and leave.

[robertthebard]

All I'm taking away from this is that every protagonist, in every crpg ever made, was a Mary Sue.  This despite the fact that some people will have all the cheat codes printed out beside their monitor before the game ever installs, just so they can't mess up.  This despite being "saved by the bell" aka the infamous Quick Save, just in case they pick the wrong dialog.  But wait, if the character is truly a Mary Sue, there can't be a Wrong Dialog, can there?  That would be totally out of character for a Mary Sue.

 

That is, as I see it, the problem with trying to attribute a literary trope to an interactive medium.  The vast majority of video games are written in such a way as to allow the PC to successfully complete whatever it is they're supposed to be doing.  Why?  Because if it was possible to get the "Game Over" screen 5 minutes into Chapter 1, that games forums would make the old ME 3 boards look like Hello Kitty forums, all sunshine and rainbows.  Yes, you get to solve the problems, because if the devs didn't let you solve all the problems, you'd be saying how epic fail the game was that you could, inadvertently, "break the game" and fail by choosing the wrong line of dialog, or going to the wrong map first, etc etc.

 

So no, I don't see video game protagonists et al as being Mary Sues by design.  I see gaming companies making it so that the player can win the game in order to protect their bottom lines.  Somebody pointed this out earlier, but it bears repeating:  Any time a PC is shown to not be invulnerable, it's a fail on the devs part.  The examples given off the top of my head were ME 3 Shep and Hawke.  Two characters that "wore their flaws on their sleeves" as it were, and were bashed to hell and gone for it.  What was the most common complaint?  Roughly paraphrasing here:  My Shepard/Hawke could have solved that with no problem, wouldn't have been emotionally affected by the death of a crew mate/family member.  Yes, there was a poster in the DA II forums that stated flat out that he/she wouldn't have been upset about his/her mother dying.  So games are written the way they are because if they weren't, people would be all over the place shouting at the tops of their typing voices about how fail that game developer was.

[Nightwriter]

It only seems like the whole "Mary Sue" thing is an epidemic in gaming because games inherently have a "Failure state", which tends to color one's disposition towards striving for the best possible outcome. Any other outcome seems like another Failure State.

 

At least, that's how I see the problem... The only real solution is to write in a nobody-wins scenario, like Virmire.

 

Eh that, and games (BioWare games at least) have a predisposition for protagonist Special Snowflake syndrome in general, due to a few recurring trends.

 

- By default you are often playing a character who succeeds where others have failed, who lives where others have died, or who generally achieves effective results where others have (for whatever reason) not been able to Do Anything^TM. You often hit No One Can Get Anything Done Without You territory, which flirts with Mary Suedom.

 

- In the realm of game romance, it's often a given that love interests are attracted to the protagonist. Sues are sometimes characterized by their ability to cause desire or attraction simply by existing. Compare this to the player character causing attraction simply by being the player character.

 

- You're always accruing an impressive reputation that invokes awe or praise from people. It's never long before people are telling you what a badass you are, likening you to an unstoppable force of nature, or saying you're something special. 

 

Sometimes this is all it takes to make some people start making Mary Sue noises at the protagonist.

[zambingo]

Excellent points, Nightwriter. The counter-points, which you probably know already but I'll say, are that all those traits are fueled by a play style. If the player plays differently then things are... well... different. eg. Companions don't like you. Some leave. A few fight you. etc. etc. All the while the game doesn't fail you, you can still progress and win.

I believe it's fair to say that if the player doesn't like how everyone agrees with or flirts with their PC then they need to stop playing as a fence sitter who hypocritically then takes every opportunity to flatter their companions egos.

That can never be more apparent than playing nice with Anders, at least if you agree with the POV about how monumentally stupid he was to merge with Justice.

Similarly I had Shepard put crew members in their place all the time; flirty Kaiden just oogling his commanding officer, Joker talking back all the damn time. Lock it down, you're military.

[Lorien19]

Well,since the inquisitor is your own character,I'd assume you can shape them in any way you like,If you want them to be Mary-Sues or Gary Stue,I guess it's up to you...

[Maiden Crowe]

Our characters get plenty of development through the games if we wish them to.

 

How much of that development is headcanon that never gets acknowledged by the game?

 

And I don't know if they're too skillful to be believed.

 

You don't believe that what we are told is supposed to be a regular human bashing down a solid steel portcullis with only their shield is beyond the realm of believability?

 

They can't save everyone. 

 

Redcliffe suggests otherwise

 

And they're not always successful in every attempt.

 

Only if you go out of your way to purposely **** up, seriously the quests are designed in such a way it is incredibly difficult to screw up, in fact in order to screw up you really need put in the extra effort to do so purposely choosing the derp options while ignoring what is clearly presented as the optimal solution.

 

When it comes down to it the Dragon Age games are pure wish fulfillment putting more emphasis on stroking the player's ego than telling an interesting and believable story, if that is truly what you want then just come out and say it, I have no idea why you need to hide behind this facade pretending to hate Mary Sues if that is truly what you want in an RPG.

[Maiden Crowe]

Ok how many of you would be open to a situation where success requires the player to perform a vile action that causes them to be despised by all those around them, the only other alternative being failure and losing important members of your party? How many of you would be open to the player character receiving a horrible disfigurement as the result of one of their choices effecting any possible romances? How many of you would be open to a romance that ends badly, resulting in either a pre-mature death for that companion or an event where your relationship with said character is damaged beyond repair? No escapes, No alternate choices that lead to a more optimal outcome.

[Volus Warlord]

Ok how many of you would be open to a situation where success requires the player to perform a vile action that causes them to be despised by all those around them, the only other alternative being failure and losing important members of your party? How many of you would be open to the player character receiving a horrible disfigurement as the result of one of their choices effecting any possible romances? How many of you would be open to a romance that ends badly, resulting in either a pre-mature death for that companion or an event where your relationship with said character is damaged beyond repair? No escapes, No alternate choices that lead to a more optimal outcome.

 

 

That'd be a bit sadistic tbh

[Zu Long]

Ok how many of you would be open to a situation where success requires the player to perform a vile action that causes them to be despised by all those around them, the only other alternative being failure and losing important members of your party? How many of you would be open to the player character receiving a horrible disfigurement as the result of one of their choices effecting any possible romances? How many of you would be open to a romance that ends badly, resulting in either a pre-mature death for that companion or an event where your relationship with said character is damaged beyond repair? No escapes, No alternate choices that lead to a more optimal outcome.

 

Nope, I'll pass.

[CronoDragoon]

Ok how many of you would be open to a situation where success requires the player to perform a vile action that causes them to be despised by all those around them, the only other alternative being failure and losing important members of your party?

 

I suppose it would depend how it's done. I'm not totally against it in theory.

 

How many of you would be open to the player character receiving a horrible disfigurement as the result of one of their choices effecting any possible romances?

What kind of disfigurement? You couldn't really have anything that would affect gameplay.

 

How many of you would be open to a romance that ends badly, resulting in either a pre-mature death for that companion or an event where your relationship with said character is damaged beyond repair?

 

If it fits the story, sure.

[lady_v23]

heck no.  I honestly think renegade shepard was far from being a mary sue.  And I love her that way.   Here's hoping my inquisitor can be just as bad or worse than her

[Bob from Accounting]

Ok how many of you would be open to a situation where success requires the player to perform a vile action that causes them to be despised by all those around them, the only other alternative being failure and losing important members of your party?

 

That really depends.

 

'Everybody hating you' is vague. If the action in question actually does come to damn the player, as it should, and if the sacrifice in question is treated by the narrative as righteous although tragic, it could work.

 

Mordin dying on Tuchanka is basically that. It's a sacrifice, but it serves a higher purpose. It's validated.

 

But the 'vile action' never having any consequence and the sacrificing being for nothing? No. That's repulsive.