Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
HERO PREFERENCE QUESTION
Posts
Pages:
1
Homunculus
15
Homunculus
View playlists
CloseWhat do you typically prefer in the video games:
A. The hero haphazzardly gets himself involved in a situation and the game develops from there
Or
B. The hero is indirectly or directly involved in or related to the main scheme of the plot but doesn't know or realize it until much later in the game (either by antagonist's manipulation of the character, destiny, memory loss and wondering why shit's happening, etc...)
A. The hero haphazzardly gets himself involved in a situation and the game develops from there
Or
B. The hero is indirectly or directly involved in or related to the main scheme of the plot but doesn't know or realize it until much later in the game (either by antagonist's manipulation of the character, destiny, memory loss and wondering why shit's happening, etc...)
B. Less wasted/idle time, obviously stumbling into affairs he shouldn't step into .. less screwed up video game logic.
Although both can be done well. It depends on what you try to achieve with your story.
(Approach A)
In Nocturne (or SMT III) you start of as a neutral party .. sure, once the world breaks down, your friends (or former friends) become involved, but you spent the whole game on your own trying to figure out what happened, what's happening and what you want to happen next to this world.
Approach B wouldn't have helped here. The neutral stance remains until you decide what you want to do. If you were involved, you couldn't just keep out of it.
(Approach B)
Whereas in DDS you play the leader of a tribe which is at an ongoing war with others. The whole situation is obscure and follows weird laws when people turn into demons. Whether it's just a measure to bring this war ultimately to an end or something else, you are only left to wonder.
But the leadership (and not being the only one who has a brain and a say) gives an immediate purpose and connection. If this place is going to hell, you at least gotta protect those close to you. It's your tribe, you were not randomly recruited, stumbled into their base or anything similar ridiculous, so you have much more motivation to actually fight for it. It also makes winning this war an immediate goal. No messy explanation needed.
Although both can be done well. It depends on what you try to achieve with your story.
(Approach A)
In Nocturne (or SMT III) you start of as a neutral party .. sure, once the world breaks down, your friends (or former friends) become involved, but you spent the whole game on your own trying to figure out what happened, what's happening and what you want to happen next to this world.
Approach B wouldn't have helped here. The neutral stance remains until you decide what you want to do. If you were involved, you couldn't just keep out of it.
(Approach B)
Whereas in DDS you play the leader of a tribe which is at an ongoing war with others. The whole situation is obscure and follows weird laws when people turn into demons. Whether it's just a measure to bring this war ultimately to an end or something else, you are only left to wonder.
But the leadership (and not being the only one who has a brain and a say) gives an immediate purpose and connection. If this place is going to hell, you at least gotta protect those close to you. It's your tribe, you were not randomly recruited, stumbled into their base or anything similar ridiculous, so you have much more motivation to actually fight for it. It also makes winning this war an immediate goal. No messy explanation needed.
RedMask
1139
Either is fine.
One thing you mention though is the plot device of destiny. I just wanna say I don't like the whole destiny thing. Why should anyone be born to do something? We have free will and free will is way more interesting. Destiny is just another way of saying the main character has to do something just because.
Hope thats not too off topic.
One thing you mention though is the plot device of destiny. I just wanna say I don't like the whole destiny thing. Why should anyone be born to do something? We have free will and free will is way more interesting. Destiny is just another way of saying the main character has to do something just because.
Hope thats not too off topic.
Both aren't mutually exclusive, are they? Xenogears has both; Fei, the main character's destiny is a fundamental and moving force in the game's mythos, and several forces in the game revolve around him simply existing, however as a person, he gets moved and shuffed around by events, other people's problems, and simply being a small fry in a big world for a big part of the game. Hell, a focal point of the game comes from his realizing this and deciding to be more proactive in what happens around/to him.
It all comes down to a sense of scale. In some RPGs your main character is just a bit player in a larger world around him and his role is in accordance to that, and in some RPGs, your player *is* the world, and most things that are significant in the narrative happens because of the MC.
It all comes down to a sense of scale. In some RPGs your main character is just a bit player in a larger world around him and his role is in accordance to that, and in some RPGs, your player *is* the world, and most things that are significant in the narrative happens because of the MC.
Nivlacart
1571
I like A.
It kind of bugs me when the destiny of the world rests on only one person's shoulders. Like the rest of the world doesn't matter save for this character. Or even if wasn't imbued with some destiny like being the chosen, he can't be the only one in the world that was courageous enough to make decisions to save the world. It invalidates the efforts of everyone else in the world. I mean, sure, castle guards are useless, but you don't have to rub salt into the wound. Saving the world should be a combined effort of... the world, you know?
If it's A, if he's thrust into saving the world, at least there was an explanation, because he was a normal person before then.
(I view manga the same way too. Like Fullmetal Alchemist showing that it took the combined effort of many different people to take down the antagonist. Unlike Bleach, where if the main character didn't exist the manga would be quarter as long.)
It kind of bugs me when the destiny of the world rests on only one person's shoulders. Like the rest of the world doesn't matter save for this character. Or even if wasn't imbued with some destiny like being the chosen, he can't be the only one in the world that was courageous enough to make decisions to save the world. It invalidates the efforts of everyone else in the world. I mean, sure, castle guards are useless, but you don't have to rub salt into the wound. Saving the world should be a combined effort of... the world, you know?
If it's A, if he's thrust into saving the world, at least there was an explanation, because he was a normal person before then.
(I view manga the same way too. Like Fullmetal Alchemist showing that it took the combined effort of many different people to take down the antagonist. Unlike Bleach, where if the main character didn't exist the manga would be quarter as long.)
I'm fine with both, I just want it to be well written. However, I think there are other situations that you're not mentioning. Or rather variations on situations.
I sort of always liked (in the context of my own stories) drawing the player in by way of the main character being involved in the main scheme of the plot, but just gradually revealing how and why they're related. Think of it as the way that most Final Fantasy games are written: the characters usually understand the plot exactly right off the bat, but the player is left to piece it together as they go along based on what the characters do.
idk maybe I'm not explaining it right but I like my main characters to be heavily involved in the story from the get go. I just think it really helps keep things moving and focused.
EDIT: Although truthfully I'd like to think that you can't really over generalize a hero's involvement in a story down to an A and B choice. Because most well written stories involve both of these things strewn about the plot, as well as many other conventions.
I sort of always liked (in the context of my own stories) drawing the player in by way of the main character being involved in the main scheme of the plot, but just gradually revealing how and why they're related. Think of it as the way that most Final Fantasy games are written: the characters usually understand the plot exactly right off the bat, but the player is left to piece it together as they go along based on what the characters do.
idk maybe I'm not explaining it right but I like my main characters to be heavily involved in the story from the get go. I just think it really helps keep things moving and focused.
EDIT: Although truthfully I'd like to think that you can't really over generalize a hero's involvement in a story down to an A and B choice. Because most well written stories involve both of these things strewn about the plot, as well as many other conventions.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
author=NivlacartIn this sense, I think the unlikely hero who gradually becomes involved as the game goes on makes way less sense. At least in a story that involves and an adventure or journey. Because if the hero can become involved to that degree despite having no connection, then so can every other person in the world. Why is the hero doing all this crap with the help of just a good-hearted thief, a travelling swordsman, a shrine maiden, his not-girlfriend, and one enemy leiutenant who saw the light and switched sides? Why do I not have the entire armies of multiple nations in my party? Why isn't the general of the nation's military the main playable character of the game?
It kind of bugs me when the destiny of the world rests on only one person's shoulders. Saving the world should be a combined effort of... the world, you know?
If the hero has a more personal role in the conflict, then it makes sense that he might be fighting on his own or with a very small group - because his goal isn't generic. He has a specific goal, one that other people wouldn't necessarily join him in. Everyone on the same planet who can fight is probably an equally likely candidate to join the party in Final Fantasy 4/6/7/8/9, but in Final Fantasy 13 or Wild ARMs 3 your characters each have a very personal goal they're following. You can't ask for help from every single person you meet because they don't care about rescuing your girlfriend or learning about your past or settling a vendetta with the scientist who experimented on you. You might still save the world in the end, but it's not why you're there.
You can also solve that problem by giving the main character special powers that no one else has, but that requires you to not add any more characters to the party after that happens. It's also kind of lame, since it automatically makes all human enemies feel non-threatening.
Honestly? I don't care as long as it's written well.
They both have their merits and detractions.
The first is an 'anyone could be this person' fantasy which is great when you want to slip on someone else's shoes but still feel as though this is your fight.
The second is more 'this is that person rising to the challenge' and is less about becoming the character yourself and more about following the story with the character.
Both are perfectly good ways of telling a story.
They both have their merits and detractions.
The first is an 'anyone could be this person' fantasy which is great when you want to slip on someone else's shoes but still feel as though this is your fight.
The second is more 'this is that person rising to the challenge' and is less about becoming the character yourself and more about following the story with the character.
Both are perfectly good ways of telling a story.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Neither of the options in the original post are the type of heroic origin I actually prefer, which is to have a hero who is central to the conflict from the get go.
The two options in the OP are Crono and Tidus, and I think they're both boring. One makes me spend the entire game unable to care about the conflict from the hero's point of view, while the other "only" makes me spend the first half of the game unable to care. I'd rather be able to care during the whole game, thanks. Give me Thrall, Cecil, or even Fox McCloud instead - someone who's directly connected to the conflict immediately.
The two options in the OP are Crono and Tidus, and I think they're both boring. One makes me spend the entire game unable to care about the conflict from the hero's point of view, while the other "only" makes me spend the first half of the game unable to care. I'd rather be able to care during the whole game, thanks. Give me Thrall, Cecil, or even Fox McCloud instead - someone who's directly connected to the conflict immediately.
Pages:
1
