84 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

In the Iliad?

Paris is barely ever seen with Helen in the poem, and there's no plot-development of their relationship. Besides, as far as the structure of the poem goes, Paris is at best a background character, and Helen almost doesn't show up at all.

Most people, when they try to shoe-horn a love story into the Iliad, try using Achilles and Patroklos' relationship. It's still not a great fit. Achilles is almost invisible for half the story, and Patroklos really only shows up to put on Achilles' armor, lead the Achaians, and get killed. The only thing we see of the relationship is what it leaves behind: a petulant man-child killer who goes apes**t on gods and men for days after he loses a prized possession. Much of the plot of the Iliad is Achilles throwing b***h fits after losing something; in the beginning, he loses Briseis and retreats to his tent to sulk while his comrades are slaughtered, then he loses Patroklos and kills everything within reach until his rage is slaked.

At least there is plot there - a bit of it, anyway - and there is a relationship, although it's not entirely clear if it involves love. You could make an argument for it.

But then you'd have to identify a villain and a hero.

 

Hera. It's always been Hera.

 

Just like Skyler's always been Breaking Bad's main villain. At least, to hear the fans tell it.

[Ahglock]

Again, that's confusing the storytelling idea of the Trojan War with the actual text of the epic poem Iliad.

And it's rather missing the point of the original post, which was to point out that hero, villain, and love story are not immutable aspects of every great story, much less every story of any quality. They are not even aspects of the first great Western story. If the Iliad could get away without having a clearly defined villain, romance, or hero, then it seems silly to me to automatically assume that, if ME:A (or any other story) doesn't have those, then it will be bad.

 

2 points.

1 the iliad wasn't a third person shooter.

2.  Bioware writers are not homer. 

[In Exile]

Again, that's confusing the storytelling idea of the Trojan War with the actual text of the epic poem Iliad.

And it's rather missing the point of the original post, which was to point out that hero, villain, and love story are not immutable aspects of every great story, much less every story of any quality. They are not even aspects of the first great Western story. If the Iliad could get away without having a clearly defined villain, romance, or hero, then it seems silly to me to automatically assume that, if ME:A (or any other story) doesn't have those, then it will be bad.

 

Well, except for the fact that because of the way the perspective works in the story, people do choose sides, and then there is an antagonist in the story. 

[Seraphim24]

In the Iliad?

Paris is barely ever seen with Helen in the poem, and there's no plot-development of their relationship. Besides, as far as the structure of the poem goes, Paris is at best a background character, and Helen almost doesn't show up at all.

Most people, when they try to shoe-horn a love story into the Iliad, try using Achilles and Patroklos' relationship. It's still not a great fit. Achilles is almost invisible for half the story, and Patroklos really only shows up to put on Achilles' armor, lead the Achaians, and get killed. The only thing we see of the relationship is what it leaves behind: a petulant man-child killer who goes apes**t on gods and men for days after he loses a prized possession. Much of the plot of the Iliad is Achilles throwing b***h fits after losing something; in the beginning, he loses Briseis and retreats to his tent to sulk while his comrades are slaughtered, then he loses Patroklos and kills everything within reach until his rage is slaked.

At least there is plot there - a bit of it, anyway - and there is a relationship, although it's not entirely clear if it involves love. You could make an argument for it.

But then you'd have to identify a villain and a hero.

 

That's part of the reason all the literary greats just never appealed, the most exciting thing is to read about the actual battles and stories themselves. Shakespeare, Homer, these are all just famous as the teller of the story, not the subject or embodiment of it.

 

Another example has been reading the clash between countries during the Napoleonic wars, they are just so intense and filled with actual drama. In all seriousness, who would rather meet Shakespeare than Napoleon? A funny whimsical pleb who writes stories so ineloquently you need to have it translated for you by a cadre of individuals, or a man who literally conquered pretty much the entire civilized world.

 

Or even Shakespeare's dramatization of the English with John Talbot and his silly absurd story about him being a heroic figure, the French annihilated the English at the Battle of Castillion, which was part of the larger hundred years war which was the English encroaching on French dominion anyway. If you lose, you aren't a hero.

 

Not to mention all the funny things you learn like that a German victory in WW2 was interrupted by friendly fire (and I'll bet friendly fire happened in the Peloponessian war, but that didn't make it into the epic), or that an actual bear fought on the side of the allies and transported ammo crates

 

https://en.wikipedia..._(soldier_bear)

 

As far as Homer and the Odyssey and antiquity goes I haven't explored it as in depth, but there were certainly some feeling like that this seems all high strung and emotional when it should be about some kick butt Spartan hero. If I just read about for instance the Battle of Canne, it's all momentous and engaging, because then it leads you to ask if Hannibal was such a bad mother why didn't Carthage win the war? And well it turns out that however clever Hannibal was, Scipio was like a god compared to that...

[Lady Artifice]

IMO all stories have a love story, a good guy, and a bad guy.

Even if there isn't a Harbinger or TIM or Kai Leng.
There will be somebody other than us. That person may be in our team but wants the glory. So they are now the villain in this story.

Even coming of age books have the love story between the character and the best friend, unreciprocated crush, or whatever it may be.
They have the villain of an idea or person they are against.

Every story will have a main character, villain, and love plot by the time it's been written.

 

So...The Telltale Heart, Shadow Over Innsmouth, The Snows of Kilimanjaro. These are all disqualified from being stories in your opinion? 

 

Regarding the bolded, "the villain of idea" might amount to a conflict, without needing an antagonist. Story is conflict, but there are countless examples of conflicts without villains in fiction. 

[xassantex]

with the MAKO who needs a villain. 

[Lady Artifice]

I kind of want a rogues gallery. I like having villains, plural. It's the comic book fan in me.  

[In Exile]

So...The Telltale Heart, Shadow Over Innsmouth, The Snows of Kilimanjaro. These are all disqualified from being stories in your opinion? 

 

Regarding the bolded, "the villain of idea" might amount to a conflict, without needing an antagonist. Story is conflict, but there are countless examples of conflicts without villains in fiction. 

 

But, for example, those stories do have an antagonist (or a quasi-antagonist) in the sense of a struggle. But a video-game can't really portray that kind of struggle well. With one very powerful exception: Shadows of Colossus. But that game works because of how very experimental it is in how it tells the story. 

[Lady Artifice]

But, for example, those stories do have an antagonist (or a quasi-antagonist) in the sense of a struggle. But a video-game can't really portray that kind of struggle well. With one very powerful exception: Shadows of Colossus. But that game works because of how very experimental it is in how it tells the story. 

 

They have conflict, for sure. Shadow Over Innsmouth has an antagonistic force in the plural and Telltale Heart can qualify as having several antagonists inside of the protagonist's perceptual bubble, but they don't have a love story. There's not even a friendship we can read as a platonic love story. That was more the point I was making, that there are plenty of story examples without the parameters Stakrin presented. 

[Seraphim24]

But, for example, those stories do have an antagonist (or a quasi-antagonist) in the sense of a struggle. But a video-game can't really portray that kind of struggle well. With one very powerful exception: Shadows of Colossus. But that game works because of how very experimental it is in how it tells the story. 

 

Shadow is derivative of Ocarina in every way, there's nothing experimental about it.

 

(I'm not focusing on picking on you by the way or something noticed I just responded to your comment in the other thread aswell )

 

Nonetheless it bugs me how people invert Ocarina and Shadow.

[Seraphim24]

2.  Bioware writers are not homer. 

 

They're much better than Homer actually, or least this kind of quasi-game design quasi-writing thing we call video game creators... or.... whatever.

 

Homer, Shakespeare, Dante, Chaucer, they're all hacks in the grand scheme of things because there is no action, only the aftereffects and afterimages, ramped up with gloss and pomp.

 

Bioware's people (can't speak to individual writers, or exact games per se, but game designing writers or whatever and in general) are equally  aware of potency of words but also the dual emptiness of words and necessity and value of action, hence, better.

[In Exile]

They have conflict, for sure. Shadow Over Innsmouth has an antagonistic force in the plural and Telltale Heart can qualify as having several antagonists inside of the protagonist's perceptual bubble, but they don't have a love story. There's not even a friendship we can read as a platonic love story. That was more the point I was making, that there are plenty of story examples without the parameters Stakrin presented. 

 

Oh, I totally skipped... all of the thread and just saw your post. I figured we were still on villain. I totally agree - stories don't need love, or even friendship, or to be honest even an antagonist depending on how short they are; it's just that it's hard to tell a video-game story without an antagonist, IMO. 

[Mcfly616]

I wouldn't mind a game devoid of a central antagonist. But that just means that the central conflict would have to be that much more engrossing. Like Brand says in Interstellar. There's no evil out there. And Cooper responds, only what we take with us.

 

 

I also wouldn't mind the central conflict arising from within our own crew.

[Puddi III]

I don't think we should throw the villainous baby out with the big bad megalomaniacs' bathwater that Bio is so fond of using.

[Lady Artifice]

Oh, I totally skipped... all of the thread and just saw your post. I figured we were still on villain. I totally agree - stories don't need love, or even friendship, or to be honest even an antagonist depending on how short they are; it's just that it's hard to tell a video-game story without an antagonist, IMO. 

 

I agree. In this genre, this medium, I think antagonists are usually essential to make the conflict exciting. I very much subscribe to the notion that antagonist and protagonist should contrast and define each other. 

[Puddi III]

I agree. In this genre, this medium, I think antagonists are usually essential to make the conflict exciting. I very much subscribe to the notion that antagonist and protagonist should contrast and define each other.

Just like Gary MFin Oak.

[Aimi]

2 points.
1 the iliad wasn't a third person shooter.
2.  Bioware writers are not homer.

 
So what?
 

Well, except for the fact that because of the way the perspective works in the story, people do choose sides, and then there is an antagonist in the story.

 
By that understanding of the terms that are being used, then it's impossible to have a story without an antagonist - including ME:A. I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

[Lady Artifice]

Just like Gary MFin Oak.

 

Sure. Just like that.

 

Except in color, and with a few minor dialogue adjustments. 

[Ahglock]

 
So what?
 
 
 

 

When 90+% of your game is about resolving everything through armed conflict it is not the type of story that lends itself to not having a villain, so pointing out that some stories don't have villains is not particularly relevant to MEA. Its like writing a crime drama without even an apparant crime occuring.  Technically possible, but not really appropriate.  And then, even if it is possible Bioware is not staffed with world class writers whoose works will be known for many generations.  so its unlikely they could pull it off. 

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

That's part of the reason all the literary greats just never appealed, the most exciting thing is to read about the actual battles and stories themselves. Shakespeare, Homer, these are all just famous as the teller of the story, not the subject or embodiment of it.

Another example has been reading the clash between countries during the Napoleonic wars, they are just so intense and filled with actual drama. In all seriousness, who would rather meet Shakespeare than Napoleon? A funny whimsical pleb who writes stories so ineloquently you need to have it translated for you by a cadre of individuals, or a man who literally conquered pretty much the entire civilized world.

Or even Shakespeare's dramatization of the English with John Talbot and his silly absurd story about him being a heroic figure, the French annihilated the English at the Battle of Castillion, which was part of the larger hundred years war which was the English encroaching on French dominion anyway. If you lose, you aren't a hero.

Not to mention all the funny things you learn like that a German victory in WW2 was interrupted by friendly fire (and I'll bet friendly fire happened in the Peloponessian war, but that didn't make it into the epic), or that an actual bear fought on the side of the allies and transported ammo crates

https://en.wikipedia..._(soldier_bear)

As far as Homer and the Odyssey and antiquity goes I haven't explored it as in depth, but there were certainly some feeling like that this seems all high strung and emotional when it should be about some kick butt Spartan hero. If I just read about for instance the Battle of Canne, it's all momentous and engaging, because then it leads you to ask if Hannibal was such a bad mother why didn't Carthage win the war? And well it turns out that however clever Hannibal was, Scipio was like a god compared to that...

Lolwut?

[Solas]

with the MAKO who needs a villain.

Heh

[goishen]

Again, that's confusing the storytelling idea of the Trojan War with the actual text of the epic poem Iliad.

And it's rather missing the point of the original post, which was to point out that hero, villain, and love story are not immutable aspects of every great story, much less every story of any quality. They are not even aspects of the first great Western story. If the Iliad could get away without having a clearly defined villain, romance, or hero, then it seems silly to me to automatically assume that, if ME:A (or any other story) doesn't have those, then it will be bad.

 

 

An antagonist does not always equal a villain.  So, yeh, you're right.  Technically.  But that margin is so slim that's it can slice hairs vertically.

[Ahriman]

Is this the "what can BioWare learn from Undertale" thread?

Ugh, hate these parrot threads.

 

When 90+% of your game is about resolving everything through armed conflict it is not the type of story that lends itself to not having a villain, so pointing out that some stories don't have villains is not particularly relevant to MEA. Its like writing a crime drama without even an apparant crime occuring.  Technically possible, but not really appropriate.  And then, even if it is possible Bioware is not staffed with world class writers whoose works will be known for many generations.  so its unlikely they could pull it off. 

That just means there should be antagonistic force, not villain. Technically not even sentient one required, but since we like to pretend Bioware are good at stories, we'd need someone more memorable

[Applepie_Svk]

To create a story without enemy you would face a big challange to even to write it. First and most important would be good to knowi that you are still in need of some villian even if it wasn´t literal enemy rather than odds of survival etc. Then you would need a brilliant writing, which BioWare doesn´t have, BioWare maybe do have some skills but those at current state are either way heading or already at bottom of ocean in comparison with their previous games DA:O-ME1-ME2...

 

If you know This War of Mine, it´s great example of how you can create a game without enemy figure. As a player you have a freedom of choice to do what you think is best, but you are facing some exitencial difficulties as a fear, hunger, distrust, etc., so with those challanges you can change your own character to villian. You can either try to be more human, or rather being a pragmatic who seeks only way of survival, or a monster which kills and steal stuff. The point is, that your mates within that little society are building opinions and they may face a different problems that will deppends on actions that you´ve made. 

 

As I mentioned before, their current state of writing bring me a lot of scepticism about ability to create something revolutionary, BioWare is repeating almost same pattern of their story arc over and over since the invetion of conversation wheel. And I don´t mind bit of change to story nor to keep pattern, but they would not just required to change an approach to story itself, but to the game mechanics aswell. So in the end, if you are going to remove an antagonist from game, you´ll face some difficulties that what the game is going to be about, and if you are able to do so, I would love to see RPG without enemy in it - but than we would change Sci-fi RPG into something else, maybe into adventure or some simulator :X

[Satele-Shan87]

Creating awesome stories is Bioware's strong point. I'm not worried about that.