| View previous topic - View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Nodtveidt
Demon Hunter
Joined: 11 Nov 2002
Posts: 786
Location: Camuy, PR
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2003 11:13 am Post subject: :) |
[quote] |
|
| Quote: | | Also why don't many RPGs have female leads? |
Now might be the time for me to mention a "secret" RPG project of mine which involves a female main character...but I will say nothing more now :)
-nek
_________________
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows. - wallace
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jihgfed Pumpkinhead
Stephen Hawking
Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 259
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2003 1:48 pm Post subject: Female PCs (yay) and Amnesia (boo) and Link (yay) |
[quote] |
|
If it makes you feel any better, my game lets the player choose from six PCs, three of whom are female.
And hey, you forgot the "the character has lost his memory and must fight to regain it" plot. I wouldn't be surprised if, taken together, there were more cases of amnesia in television, movies, and video-games in the last twenty years than there have been in the last hundred years of real life. I really wouldn't.
Link's not a cliché, he's just a non-character. I like non-characters, actually, you get to invent whatever personality and dialogue you want for them. It can be quite amusing.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mandrake
elementry school minded asshole
Joined: 28 May 2002
Posts: 1341
Location: GNARR!
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2003 3:00 pm Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
| Quote: |
Good and evil are subjective. In my games I try not to present a character as good, but rather, as respected or beloved by the people (who also are not presented as nessisarily good).
Good and Evil is like black and white, and so it appeals to simplistic "us vs them" instincts that is prevalent in your average person, though possibly less prevalent among the types of people who like rpgs.
I only get bothered when the villians don't believe in what they're doing. For example, in that GIJoe movie, the guy actually says "Evil will prevail!" in joy.
|
Actually I'd have to disagree. Yes, it does add to that "us verses them" concept, but really good and evil (as ideas appearent in western society) is really a complicated way of looking at the universe, adn dates far far back to ancient greece. Even though i personally, think the ideas of "good" and "evil" are just mythological concepts, I find nothing wrong their use ina video game. If you take it from a monomyth joseph campbell/jung kinda way, the good and evil in the game is representitive of conflicting personalities in one person, and the need for these personalities to contain a balance.
In reality i think good and evil are non-exitant. In stories/art/literature/video games they help us to realise ourselves.
| Quote: |
in FFVIII, Squall said to Irvine,
Quote:
There is no good or evil. There is only two different sides with different views.
|
that was one of the reasons I liked FF8. A nother thing, if you notice, that whomever the "badguy" is in that game eventually joins sides with the main characters, and a new bad guy arises. Also, combined with showing the side of the evil soldeiers (via flashbacks and such), you get a sense of their being no real baddies in the game. It was an interesting way of doing things.
| Quote: |
Besides, the fact that there's no good or evil means that there are NOT just two sides. The whole point is that there are many degrees of 'sides' and motives.
|
That's in real life. We are talking about video games- the more complicated and "real" you make a character, the less a player feels like he is that character. Sure, it would be nice if proust wrote a video game (with his forms of complicated all too real characters), but would anyone play it?
| Quote: |
Evil Empire(FF7)
Religion(BOF2)
Artifact of power(Zelda)
Ancient Evil(All of the above and more)
Honestly it gets annoying especially when the main carachter is constantly recycled:
Tough guy who eventually turns good(Cecil,Cloud)
Dumbass kid(Zelda)
Reclusive mysterious guy with heart of gold(Squall)
|
Dumbass kid? Zelda wasn't a dumbass kid, he was a non-character, in other words, he had no personality except what the pplayer attributed to him. This is good for games that are as open-ended as zelda since the player spends more time being the character than watching animation sequences.
I'm really sick of all this cliche talk. Yeah, go out and play some games other than those done by sqaure soft. Like Persona. Or lunar. Or Car Battler Joe. And what is wrong with cliche's in the first place? Maybe where you see cliche you should be seeing monomyth,
I'll rant some more later....when I'm not at work.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jihgfed Pumpkinhead
Stephen Hawking
Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 259
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2003 12:39 am Post subject: Plagiarism and Mythic Cycles |
[quote] |
|
| Jihgfed Pumpkinhead wrote: | | Link's not a cliché, he's just a non-character. I like non-characters, actually, you get to invent whatever personality and dialogue you want for them. It can be quite amusing. |
| Mandrake wrote: | | Dumbass kid? Zelda wasn't a dumbass kid, he was a non-character, in other words, he had no personality except what the pplayer [sic] attributed to him. This is good for games that are as open-ended as zelda since the player spends more time being the character than watching animation sequences. |
Well, hmph. I'd like to blow it off with a "great minds think alike" or some other trifling statement, but I just had to sit through a joint class "why plagiarism is bad" lecture, and now I have an increased regard for intellectual property rights. So I can't just blow it off: I'm going to have to sue, or something.
Heh heh, I'm just kidding, of course. Anyway, I got my revenge by pointing out your typographical error; made me feel really big, that did.
On a slightly less serious note, I've just finished "Man and His Symbols" recently, and it's certainly made me look at folktales in a different light (not that I didn't appreciate them before). Anyway, I found it fascinating, and am eager to read something by Campbell. Any suggestions?
More apropos (since you brought it up), what are your thoughts on RPG plots and their mythical qualities? Most importantly, since I think it definitely fair to say that RPGs very, very often share similar plots and themes, what makes these plots and themes so particular to RPGs? And what does it say of the people who play them?
Sorry if I'm pointing this thread a little towards the abstruse (I really am sorry), but like I said, you brought it up. And more importantly I'm interested.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ironshanks
Wandering Minstrel
Joined: 17 Feb 2003
Posts: 134
Location: Shiner's Peak
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2003 1:12 am Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
Good question. I don't have an answer...booh. To be honest I'm not that versed in RPG archetypes.
I really like world building RPGs...that's the best, and most imaginative style to my tastes. What I mean is, that some RPGs go out of their way to create a very in depth fantasy world. I really prefer this to resorting to generic fantasy archetypes, or assuming already established fantasy elements.
_________________
That's not a broken link, it's a PICTURE of a broken link. It's really very conceptual.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mandrake@yrdaddy
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2003 2:26 pm Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
| Quote: |
Well, hmph. I'd like to blow it off with a "great minds think alike" or some other trifling statement, but I just had to sit through a joint class "why plagiarism is bad" lecture, and now I have an increased regard for intellectual property rights. So I can't just blow it off: I'm going to have to sue, or something.
Heh heh, I'm just kidding, of course. Anyway, I got my revenge by pointing out your typographical error; made me feel really big, that did.
|
hmmm, that's really odd....of course I'm to blame, since I only read a few posts in this topic rather than all of them, but that's really odd how much they sounded alike. really really odd.
| Quote: |
On a slightly less serious note, I've just finished "Man and His Symbols" recently, and it's certainly made me look at folktales in a different light (not that I didn't appreciate them before). Anyway, I found it fascinating, and am eager to read something by Campbell. Any suggestions?
|
Let's see here, campbell books that are good, i would have to say, would be "Love and the Godess", "Occidental Mythology", and the classic that made him what he is, "The Hero with a thousand faces".
| Quote: |
More apropos (since you brought it up), what are your thoughts on RPG plots and their mythical qualities? Most importantly, since I think it definitely fair to say that RPGs very, very often share similar plots and themes, what makes these plots and themes so particular to RPGs? And what does it say of the people who play them?
|
Actually, the funny part is a few years ago (before this incarnation of RPGDX existed) I had written an article about the monomyth of the hero and RPG's. It was put on a now-defunct site and I no longer have the original document. All I have to say is, that the modern RPG captured the monomyth of the hero perfectly. It recaptures the storytelling element (where the player is an active particpant to a story, rather than passive), and that it contains (in it's story and structure), all the necassary themes and plots to make it mythical.
I could go on about this for days. I remember getting into an arguement with a fan of another monomyth writer (Vogel, who pretty much candy coated campbell's ideas into lame insipidness) on wether or not the monomyth was psychological in nature (which, anyone reading Campbell or Jung knows that it is). He kept insisting it was just a neat writer's trick. Anyway, I'll post more on it later if anyone's interested.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jihgfed Pumpkinhead
Stephen Hawking
Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 259
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2003 3:39 pm Post subject: On Jung, McLuhan, and Always Having to Be Somebody's Bitch |
[quote] |
|
I'm interested, but I already mentioned that. Seriously, I think the discovery of the psychological patterning of stories, in a word, the rediscovery of myth, is one of the most important advances in literature in this century.
How many posts do I have to make to no longer be someone-or-other's bitch? Not that I'm posting just for that reason, or anything, but that said I would really like to know.
Is anyone here familiar with Marshall McLuhan's work on media? It provides another interesting way of looking at the affect of RPGs, very different from Jung/Campbell's mythic sort of way, but I think very complementary to it. Just putting it out there, see if anyone knows anything about it, since I don't know merely as much as I'd like to, and would be grateful for any thoughts.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mandrake@work
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2003 6:58 pm Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
|
well i know you and I are interested, but I don't want to keep bumping up a thread just for us, since we could just PM this or talk about it via email :)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rainer Deyke
Demon Hunter
Joined: 05 Jun 2002
Posts: 672
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2003 8:51 pm Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
|
Personally I believe that mythology goes deeper than psychology. We repeat these stories, not because that's the way our brain happens to be wired, but because we recognize in them an underlying truth that transcends physical reality. It is no coincidence that the gods which populate our myths are the same gods we once worshipped.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mandrake@yup
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2003 9:04 pm Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
|
That's what Jung and Campbell mean by psychology....not to be confused with psychiatry. Psychiatry and Freudian psychology both deal with the mind on a small scale, the mind as a planet in itself. In Jung and Campbell the mind is connected to a vast ocean that is all human thought and the universe. This is what jung called the social subconscience. He deiscovered that there was a connection between dreams, mythology and schizophrenia, and the symbolism inherit in all three, and claimed that these are acts created by a part of the mind that remains hidden to man (unless revealed through myths, dreams and madness), and is connected to all the humanrace. This is why there is a monomyth, it means one myth that is an archetype through all myths. Fascinating stuff.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
grenideer
Wandering Minstrel
Joined: 28 May 2002
Posts: 149
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2003 9:23 pm Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
| Mandrake wrote: |
| Quote: |
Besides, the fact that there's no good or evil means that there are NOT just two sides. The whole point is that there are many degrees of 'sides' and motives.
|
That's in real life. We are talking about video games- the more complicated and "real" you make a character, the less a player feels like he is that character.
|
Wow- I can't believe 1) that someone said this and that 2) everyone let it go by.
I definitely understand that levels of realism depend largely on style and taste, and I'll come right out and say that I'm a big supporter of believable characters/ situations/ stories.
Mandrake- I don't understand your views on good and evil. It sounds like "I don't believe in good and evil BUT they are a good model in stories BUT they're not a simplification at all." I can agree that I don't believe in flat-out good/evil in real life. I can even agree that they can be a good model in stories but I think the very reason they are is because it IS a simplification.
Still though, I don't see how breaking away from convention by adding realistic layers of character motive and plot can take away from a video game. Making things more believable by definition means that a player requires less suspension of disbelief to get into the story. It's easier to get involved with a complicated, realistic character than it is with 'the wise-cracking guy', or 'the old, bumbling wizard.' I'm not saying there aren't times when simpler is better- In our industry it can be very important to keep characters plain (and have non-characters). But don't you think that games that involve heavy storylines should be a cut above the rest?
_________________
Diver Down
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mandrake
elementry school minded asshole
Joined: 28 May 2002
Posts: 1341
Location: GNARR!
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2003 9:51 pm Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
| Quote: |
I definitely understand that levels of realism depend largely on style and taste, and I'll come right out and say that I'm a big supporter of believable characters/ situations/ stories.
|
Well here is where we differ. I beleive realism is just sad when it comes to anything non-tangible, since at best it can only be the sahdow of the non-tangable and never be the thing itself. In other words, a novel/peice of art/etc (non-tangibl;e unrealities) that are trying to be real are in fact, lying about the true nature of the work. They are just covering up and limiting themselves. There is no freedom in emulating something in a form that is impossible to emulate it with.
| Quote: |
Mandrake- I don't understand your views on good and evil. It sounds like "I don't believe in good and evil BUT they are a good model in stories BUT they're not a simplification at all." I can agree that I don't believe in flat-out good/evil in real life. I can even agree that they can be a good model in stories but I think the very reason they are is because it IS a simplification.
|
Good and evil are not simplification. Only someone who has just braced the pop-mentality of good and evil concepts can just simply say how simplistic it is. The best part about good and evil (and what makes it so complicated), is the moral ambiguities it creates. Good and evil is the starting spot for complex moral problems. It also has a lot of other complexities that is necassary for it to exist, since polar concepts are basicly about the wars between the diffrent sides of the same concept.
They are a good model in stories because, as I said before, good and evil are not real. They do not depend on real life concepts, virtues, hinderances and etc. They are, on the other hand, an interesting symbolic discourse on the minds of man itself. The war of self so to speak.
| Quote: |
Still though, I don't see how breaking away from convention by adding realistic layers of character motive and plot can take away from a video game.
|
It takes away it's mythical qualities. Name one mythical epic where the characters had complex personalities. This is the reason why Tolkien chose in LOTR to create simplistic, almost non-human characters. Because in the mythic world, complex characters lose their symbolic nature, and all teh qualities that go with it.
| Quote: |
Making things more believable by definition means that a player requires less suspension of disbelief to get into the story.
|
Suspension of disbelief is for fools. Video game makers/writers/artists should not pander to the audiance, who, upon picking whatever their creation is, knows from the outset that it is fiction and a lie. If I'm playing a video game/reading a book, and I demand realism from it, I am a fool. The player suspends disbeleif the moment he presses start on a video game, or opens the first page of the book. It's up to him to keep it suspended, not the creator. Fiction is fiction. It can never be real.
| Quote: | It's easier to get involved with a complicated, realistic character than it is with 'the wise-cracking guy', or 'the old, bumbling wizard.' I'm not saying there aren't times when simpler is better- In our industry it can be very important to keep characters plain (and have non-characters). But don't you think that games that involve heavy storylines should be a cut above the rest?
|
Heavy storylines and complicated characters are not the same thing. I think if games are to evolve, the most do so as any other artform has, and move into the realm away from realism and more towards experimentalism.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tenshi
Everyone's Peachy Lil' Bitch
Joined: 31 May 2002
Posts: 386
Location: Newport News
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2003 12:13 am Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
- I am against the black and white of "Good" vs. "Evil", because we have both good and evil in us. When a character is purely good, or purely evil, then it becomes very difficult to sympathize with them. I enjoy a story that "humanizes" both sides, both the "good" and the "bad", kind of like Gundam and RoboTech and Star Trek. Sometimes, simplicity reduces believability. The world is not black and white, it is full of color.
- BUt I have to disagree with you. I think that realism helps us relate to the characters we play. As I said before, I can't relate to a character that is "pure good" , nor can I relate to one that is "pure evil". My theory is that our ability [as humans] to sympathize with a character [fictional] is amplified [or reduced] by our ability to exert our "self" into the character(s) in question. But also, we need to have a sense of "sense". If there is no relation between the fictional world of the character, and our own real world, it becomes very difficult to imagine how we would behave in the fictional one. If absolutely no laws of physics applied, could we even understand (or even design) the interactions of the bodies of that universe? Removing the basic foundation of our understanding kind of removes our ability to understand and to adapt.
_________________
- Jaeda
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lazyshanks
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2003 12:24 am Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
I'm completely with Tenshi on this one. I think your views are interesting, and quite unconventional, Mandrake, I have to disagree as well. Empathy is probably the most potent, and entertaining, emotion an author of any kind can evoke in a viewer (participant, or what have you) and without it I find a lot of works totally fall apart. Personally I had trouble reading through the segments of Lord of the Rings that primarily featured Aragorn because I couldn't stand how inhuman he was, it just wasn't interesting. My favourite character in the entire trilogy was actually Boromir. Actually, I find most of the 'heroic' characters don't appeal to me at all. Heracles for instance, strikes me as a complete ass. You need a certain amount of complexity to actually care about what's happening.
On the other hand, I would like to see a certain amount of experimentation as you suggest. I'm curious about how you feel about the world-building type fantasies I mentioned before. Mostly because I think they contrast sharply with the ideas you just outlined, since there is no point in creating a false reality. At least if I understand you correctly, if I've mis-read I apologize.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jihgfed Pumpkinhead
Stephen Hawking
Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 259
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2003 1:05 am Post subject: Complexity Vs. Simplicity |
[quote] |
|
Well, okay, I'll raise a couple points here.
Firstly, good and evil don't really have any external reality; external to people, I mean. Ultimately, they're just definitions. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if we were all defining them as different things, and it would not surprise me if that dissimilarity in definition were at the root of some of these problems. I'm not going to try to find some definition on which we all could agree, because, well, I don't really want to, and God knows I'm no expert on the subject; but I can at least guarantee that the central question here isn't going to be answered to anyone's satisfaction until that mutually-agreed-upon definition is found.
Now,
| Mandrake wrote: | | Suspension of disbelief is for fools. |
but isn't that a little harsh, and uncalled for? I mean, it all comes down to taste, right? You're free to argue your point, of course; but until your point has been completely and effectively argued, until, that is, you have won him over to your side, you shouldn't call him a fool for maximizing his enjoyment (as a designer and a player) as he sees fit. If you think he can get more enjoyment or benefit by abandoning his ideas, and adopting yours, it's commendable of you to argue with him, but until he's been convinced, he can only follow his tastes and his habits. Right?
I really liked Boromir, too; he was my favourite character in the books as well (well, except Tom Bombadil; but everybody loves Tom Bombadil). But Boromir's not a complex character by any means. In truth, you'll find more complexity in Bruce Willis' character in "Die Hard". I mean, what can you say about Boromir? He is a powerful warrior, values all the good, manly virtues, but he suffers from hubris, by that hurts himself and those around him, but then he finally redeems himself in a final act of heroism and martyrdom. How much more archetypal, more simple, or more cliché does it get? Not much. Of course, it doesn't get much more powerful, or compelling than that, either.
You see, I think that while we may be able to relate with the more complex characters on an intellectual level, it is with the simple, archetypal characters that we relate on an emotional level. Complex characters, if they do not have some way of tapping into the not-quite-conscious, emotional part of the player, inevitably seem hollow and substanceless. They may be more "real", but they have no emotional resonance. The truly powerful stories and characters break across all barriers; they touch something fundamental and simple in us; not something abstract and intellectual.
Well, yeah, it's fairly obvious I've been promoting the myth, here. That's to my taste.
Ultimately I think it comes down to this: complexity is cultural and abstruse; simplicity is primal and emotional. So, you know, choose whichever floats your boat, so to speak. Frankly, so far as I'm concerned, any good story will draw heavily on both. So I aim to include plenty of both in my game. So there you go. How's that for simplicity?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
