MOST MEMORABLE RM CHARACTERS [MAY INCLUDE SPOILERS!!!]

author=Max McGee link=topic=3590.msg72984#msg72984 date=1241110791
Bizarrely, that is the second time that Det. Wilks who I thought of as a throwaway stock character has been mentioned as being memorable.

Once again, I am bewildered. Tom himself is MUCH more memorable and interesting.

If I ever get the gumption, motivation, or drive to actually review Backstage, Max, you'll see my thoughts on Tom as a character.

Nope, Det. Wilks is by far the most interesting character (for me) in that game. I was pleased as gooseberry pie to be able to control him for a short while, even if leading him to his (well deserved) death.

bahleted

Among others and for various reasons...

*takes a deep breath*

Strata, mainly for having more depth than I first thought;
The Phantom Slasher;
Slade and Scatha;
Alanthreonus Philippe Straphachar;
The Phantom;
Lexus;
Sacrifa and Lilah;
Kavax;
Every major character from Demon Legacy except for Odin and Kagero (and only because we don't know much about them);
Every major character from Three the Hard Way;
Robin Tanjewel;
Tristan Ilnoir;
Ririmisi;
Zemo ("Hah! Shows how much you know! Not only am I an annoying, stupid, and pointless final villain, I'm an annoying, stupid, and pointless recurring final villain!")
Rodd;
Rifan;
Lehyne;
Elsa;
Syeull;
Nepthe;
Metzger*;
Zephyrus;
Undead Bahamut (not memorable story-wise but I think seeing a tutorial boss who's also the bonus boss is somewhat memorable);
Nero;
Lilith;
Thanatos;
Thomas;
Luba Darascalo;
Joshua (having a psychotic priest as a PC wins bonus points with me);
Atlantis Pasachoff*.

*These two characters may be a bit more obscure than the others. Kudos if you know who they are. 8)

Character I most wanted to stop/get rid of/cast into the void : Deimos.
Antagonists I pitied the most : Catawba, Lucama, Greene, Tristan (same one as above), Abel, Maribel, Arianna, Apollo, Sarius, Loki, and Galahanzer/Shadar.

Marion of the Govan? I thought she was a very good character, actually - see, it's *scary* that the player has been ignoring the real threat (who was safely watching you from afar) all along. I liked how the Govan ended up being super-dangerous, super-manipulative corrupt zealots.

it was so inconsequential you could finish the game without ever knowing its existance...

That's only half-true... While defeating Teachey the Discordian does give you a better idea of what's going on, the endgame makes it pretty clear that Marion can't be trusted.

More spoilers.

EDIT : Spoiler tags don't work too well with quotes.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

iishenron's story is far from over, and I personally have the feeling that this isn't the last we'll see of the Candor legacy (including the Govan).

If you removed Marion from the plot, a lot would change. No Carolus, no Olanta, heck, probably no Kaibutsu war, even. Just because she's always scheming off-screen does not mean she doesn't actually do anything, she's one of the most important characters in the whole game.

Except in the "real" ending, her entire evil plot completely collapses after one character tells her "no." Oh, and she's dying.

Strictly speaking, that's not entirely true. She's not "dying" - she's just very old, and since even the Govan apparently cannot prolong life forever, she's bound to die "soon" (by Govan standards, it may mean "in a few years").

after one character tells her "no."

Not just because of that... Everything went wrong for her. The power of the Kaibutsu was shattered, Kanna told her that she wouldn't continue her work, and her pawn (Fayette) will not become queen.

Although personally, I wouldn't be surprised if she had anticipated this scenario. She may have one more trick up her sleeve... She doesn't look exactly broken, depressed, or angry after Kanna leaves. She just says "I really did try with her".

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*


End of spoilers.

Well, the fact is I didn't even know the subplot with her even existed on my first playthrough.

he really ended up eclipsing the spoiler-ific evil lady puppetmaster...

EDIT - To the admins : I don't know if this forum allows thread splitting, but if so, feel free to split this off-topic discussion.

EDIT 2 : Hide-tagged at Legion's request.

Purely mathematical, I guess you could say.

...

Since this is not the first time I've seen words like "mathematical" mentioned when talking about a story, I hope you won't mind if I take this opportunity to launch into a fairly off-topic rant.

Apparently, there are two main schools of design when it comes to writing a story.

School #1 believes in, shall we say, "inspired" stories that just come to mind. Typically, designers belonging to School #1 already have a story in mind when they start making their game; they are not the kind of people who would say "I want to make a game, but I can't come up with a good story". These designers really care about their story, want to share it with others, and will almost never let other people influence them. They are very much the kind of people who will say "it's your story, just write it the way *you* like".

School #2 believes in crafting stories. People belonging to School #2 *design* stories, and believes a good story has to follow certain rules. These designers will often take advice from people and, similarly, write articles that will explain how they think a story should be written, with advice on how to make plot twists, with a list of character archetypes that should be used and/or avoided.

I feel that Lun and RPG Advocate, for example, would mostly belong to School #1 (although Lun's co-writer, Fobo, most definitely belonged to School #2 - if, like me, you were disappointed that Sacrifa's background never got revealed, he's apparently the one to blame). Brickroad and Badluck would belong to School #2. iishenron and Nightblade... Hmm, I'd say a mix of both, but they're likely closer to School #1.

Personally, my problem with crafted stories is that they tend to be a lot less "original" - they rarely ever manage to grab my attention. The story in Ara Fell, for example, is a total mess. It starts out a ridiculously cliché and horribly predictable adventure (Whoa hey! That guy with the cloak, who never says anything, he's a villain!! Who would have guessed, yo!), complete with "I've seen it all before" heroes/villains/gratuitous love interests, then when I meet characters like Nash and I see that things get a bit more ambiguous, I think that maybe, just maybe, the author has something in mind. Then I talk to the author, and find out that the story really *was* bland all along - the vampires are bad because they drink blood, Nash is vaguely honorable but it never goes beyond that, and the good guys torture the bad guys but we're still meant to think they're nice because, well, they're the good guys. And Ara Fell is just one example out of many. School #2 writers usually lack that spark that's needed to get my attention.

(And while we're talking about vampires, here's a piece of advice to wannabe writers - never, ever make a story with species that are evil just because you say so, with no redeemers whatsoever. The only exception I can think of is "non-living" species that are supposed to represent stuff like the inherent evil of mankind and whatnot, like the demons in Zephyrus and the Kingdom of Heaven.)

Kinetic Cipher was, admittedly, an exception. Brickroad did seem to believe in crafting stories, but he managed to make his characters interesting nonetheless.

So, yes, I'm a die-hard fan of School #1. I like authors who don't let The Big Handbook of What Players Want stop them, who make their stories the way *they* want it to be, and who like messing with the player's mind... Which is why I don't mind the Teachey/Alex or Marion plot twists, unlike other people.

In conclusion, I belong to School #1 and you seem to belong to School #2... Which is why we disagree. And thanks for giving me the opportunity to get all this off my chest, that felt good. 8)



EDIT : Added spoiler tags.

author=kentona link=topic=3590.msg73645#msg73645 date=1241620250
Well, in the larger scheme of things, stories are only a dressing on the game. Gameplay is the meat.

I couldn't agree more. However, if you're going to write a story, it's better if it's good. I'd rather have almost no story (Bob's Big Adventure was like this, and it was a pretty good game) than a bad story.

I got a good one!

The black mage shopkeeper from "Frontiers Extreme"!

C'mon who's with me!

author=ShadowBlade link=topic=3590.msg73632#msg73632 date=1241605584
In conclusion, I belong to School #1 and you seem to belong to School #2... Which is why we disagree. And thanks for giving me the opportunity to get all this off my chest, that felt good. 8)

Actually these two "schools" of yours are, to be bluntly honest, bullshit. I won't spend all day getting into it, but if you really feel that these are the two schools of thought for storytelling, then, I hate to sound harsh here, you have no idea what storytelling is.

You have to tell a story that you want to tell, but you also have to let the audience enjoy it. if you just tell a story "you" want to tell, only people like "you" are going to read it/watch it/whatever. You need to tell the story you want to tell, then sell it. Otherwise, why should the audience give a damn?! And, why should they continue to give a damn as it progresses?! No matter how you're telling your story, at the end of the day, you're supplying entertainment to an audience, and you have to allow the audience to enjoy the ride. If you can't do that, you might as well be writing self-insertion fanfiction.

And, of course, there's just plain bad choices one can make. Like making a character completely inconsequential to the audience's experience, yet having the narrative try to prop them up as if they actually meant anything.

Your "schools" are little more than the extremes of two sides; self-servingly pretentious, and pretentiously stiff.

Also, don't try to peg my way of thinking like that. It's insulting.