Re: dissenting opinions, but flexible


	/-/S'pht-Translator-Active/-/

Re: dissenting opinions, but flexible

Posted By: Forrest of B.org Date: 10/18/06 7:07 a.m.
In Response To: dissenting opinions, but flexible (MrHen)

: In all of this talking, I realized that the article could simply be called
: "Main character". That would solve all of the problems. In fact,
: that is my new favorite. Thoughts?
How about "Player character"?
In video game terminology (as borrowed from role-play terminology), "Player character" is used to signify an active agent in the game which a player controls. Since the only time a player of Marathon really has a character worthy of mention is in the solo game, this picks out precisely the 10th Mjolnir Mk IV cyborg / Recon 54 / the Security Officer. I'd suggest calling the article that; but again, elsewhere you can refer to him as something else like "the Security Officer" which is all we really know of him. Other characters, of course, would never refer to him as "the player-character" as that would break the fourth wall.
On the same line, NPC (non-player character) is used to refer to any active agent in the game who is *not* player-controlled. In a pen and paper role playing game, they are controlled by the game master; in a video game, they're controlled by the game's AI. In other words, Bobs and aliens and all the drones and whatnot. Often modern players will simply call such units in games "AIs", but in Marathon that would confuse us with Tycho, Leela, Durandal, et al. Those "AIs" are not properly speaking NPCs in this sense, though they are "characters" in the story, they are not characters in the same sense as a Bob or a Fighter are - they are not physically present. Such physically present agents are often also called "units", which may be a term you'd like to use for a category of "monsters" in the Anvil sense (though I'm not really sure each unit deserves it's own page or anything). You'd probably want story-related info about them categorized elsewhere under "races" instead; include links to the unit-articles from each main race's page (e.g. the Pfhor page refers to the Fighter page and the Trooper page, etc).
I'd suggest that the category for literary characters (including Durandal, Robert Blake, and the Player-character) be called "characters", the category for in-game units (including Fighters, Drones, and Bobs) be called "units", and the category for races be called (duh) "races" (including Humans, S'pht, Pfhor, etc). And the article about the player's character be called "Player character", just as an article about Fight Club's mysterious narrator would likely be called "Narrator".
(Incidentally, we have this same problem in the Myth community, where the person whose journal it is we hear the entire story through is just "The Journal Writer", since he never refers to himself by name. It's doubly bad there since TFL and Myth II were written by separate authors, and the latter comes across the former's journal. What do we say then? "The Journal Writer 2 came across The Journal Writer 1's journal?" It gets awkward).

[ Post a Reply | Message Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ]
Pre-2004 Posts

Replies:

Terminology questions MrHen 10/16/06 6:40 a.m.

Re: Terminology questions Aaron Sikes 10/16/06 7:01 a.m.

Re: Terminology questions Forrest of B.org 10/16/06 7:28 a.m.

accepted MrHen 10/16/06 8:16 a.m.

Re: accepted Document 10/17/06 2:37 p.m.

My own terminology question RyokoTK 10/16/06 3:36 p.m.

Re: My own terminology question MrHen 10/16/06 4:01 p.m.

Re: My own terminology question RyokoTK 10/16/06 4:48 p.m.

perhaps... MrHen 10/16/06 5:18 p.m.

Re: My own terminology question Document 10/17/06 11:51 a.m.

Like Halo? *NM* MrHen 10/17/06 3:30 p.m.

Re: My own terminology question Forrest of B.org 10/16/06 6:19 p.m.

on The Player MrHen 10/16/06 8:11 a.m.

Re: on The Player Document 10/17/06 3:04 p.m.

dissenting opinions, but flexible MrHen 10/17/06 3:49 p.m.

Re: dissenting opinions, but flexible Forrest of B.org 10/18/06 7:07 a.m.

Now we are getting somewhere MrHen 10/18/06 8:55 a.m.

Re: Now we are getting somewhere Aaron Sikes 10/18/06 9:58 a.m.

Re: Now we are getting somewhere RyokoTK 10/18/06 11:56 a.m.

Re: Now we are getting somewhere MrHen 10/18/06 1:27 p.m.

whoops, forgot a point MrHen 10/18/06 1:30 p.m.

Re: whoops, forgot a point Forrest of B.org 10/18/06 2:13 p.m.

That's what I'm saying. RyokoTK 10/18/06 2:39 p.m.

I agree, but come to a different conclusion MrHen 10/18/06 3:41 p.m.

Re: I agree, but come to a different conclusion RyokoTK 10/18/06 3:54 p.m.

Re: I agree, but come to a different conclusion Forrest of B.org 10/18/06 4:05 p.m.

this is getting more off-topic... MrHen 10/18/06 4:22 p.m.

Re: this is getting more off-topic... Forrest of B.org 10/18/06 6:31 p.m.

my bad... MrHen 10/19/06 4:48 a.m.

Re: I agree, but come to a different conclusion MrHen 10/18/06 4:13 p.m.

Re: whoops, forgot a point MrHen 10/18/06 3:26 p.m.

Re: Now we are getting somewhere Document 10/19/06 8:52 a.m.

Re: Now we are getting somewhere Forrest of B.org 10/19/06 6:52 p.m.

Re: Now we are getting somewhere Forrest of B.org 10/18/06 2:01 p.m.

Almost there... MrHen 10/18/06 3:50 p.m.

Re: dissenting opinions, but flexible Forrest of B.org 10/18/06 2:22 p.m.

now *that* makes sense (final draft?) MrHen 10/18/06 3:53 p.m.

Final Draft? Forrest of B.org 10/18/06 4:13 p.m.

Re: Final Draft? Document 10/18/06 4:27 p.m.

Good. *shakes hands of everyone* MrHen 10/18/06 4:28 p.m.

Re: Good. *shakes hands of everyone* Document 10/19/06 8:33 a.m.

:) Go for it. *NM* MrHen 10/19/06 9:20 a.m.

Re: Good. *shakes hands of everyone* Forrest of B.org 10/19/06 6:55 p.m.

Re: now *that* makes sense (final draft?) Document 10/18/06 4:33 p.m.

Agreed *NM* Document 10/18/06 3:55 p.m.

Re: dissenting opinions, but flexible Document 10/24/06 1:47 p.m.

in-universe or out-of-universe? MrHen 10/24/06 4:41 p.m.

Re: on The Player Document 10/24/06 2:08 p.m.

that solves that. ;) *NM* MrHen 10/24/06 4:33 p.m.

Re: Terminology questions treellama 10/16/06 11:21 a.m.

Or Jason Jones? *NM* MrHen 10/16/06 11:27 a.m.

Re: Terminology questions Document 10/17/06 11:41 a.m.

*exctend=extend *NM* Document 10/17/06 11:45 a.m.

Re: Terminology questions RyokoTK 10/17/06 12:53 p.m.

Re: Terminology questions MrHen 10/17/06 3:51 p.m.

[ Post a Reply | Message Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ]
Pre-2004 Posts

Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:
: How about "Player character"? : In video game terminology (as borrowed from role-play terminology), : "Player character" is used to signify an active agent in the : game which a player controls. Since the only time a player of Marathon : really has a character worthy of mention is in the solo game, this picks : out precisely the 10th Mjolnir Mk IV cyborg / Recon 54 / the Security : Officer. I'd suggest calling the article that; but again, elsewhere you : can refer to him as something else like "the Security Officer" : which is all we really know of him. Other characters, of course, would : never refer to him as "the player-character" as that would break : the fourth wall. : On the same line, NPC (non-player character) is used to refer to any active : agent in the game who is *not* player-controlled. In a pen and paper role : playing game, they are controlled by the game master; in a video game, : they're controlled by the game's AI. In other words, Bobs and aliens and : all the drones and whatnot. Often modern players will simply call such : units in games "AIs", but in Marathon that would confuse us with : Tycho, Leela, Durandal, et al. Those "AIs" are not properly : speaking NPCs in this sense, though they are "characters" in the : story, they are not characters in the same sense as a Bob or a Fighter are : - they are not physically present. Such physically present agents are : often also called "units", which may be a term you'd like to use : for a category of "monsters" in the Anvil sense (though I'm not : really sure each unit deserves it's own page or anything). You'd probably : want story-related info about them categorized elsewhere under : "races" instead; include links to the unit-articles from each : main race's page (e.g. the Pfhor page refers to the Fighter page and the : Trooper page, etc). : I'd suggest that the category for literary characters (including Durandal, : Robert Blake, and the Player-character) be called "characters", : the category for in-game units (including Fighters, Drones, and Bobs) be : called "units", and the category for races be called (duh) : "races" (including Humans, S'pht, Pfhor, etc). And the article : about the player's character be called "Player character", just : as an article about Fight Club's mysterious narrator would likely be : called "Narrator". : (Incidentally, we have this same problem in the Myth community, where the : person whose journal it is we hear the entire story through is just : "The Journal Writer", since he never refers to himself by name. : It's doubly bad there since TFL and Myth II were written by separate : authors, and the latter comes across the former's journal. What do we say : then? "The Journal Writer 2 came across The Journal Writer 1's : journal?" It gets awkward).

If you'd like to include a link to another page with your message,
please provide both the URL address and the title of the page:
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:

If necessary, enter your password below:
Password:

Problems? Suggestions? Comments? Email maintainer@bungie.org
Marathon's Story Forum is maintained with WebBBS 5.12.

Terminology questions	MrHen	10/16/06 6:40 a.m.
Re: Terminology questions	Aaron Sikes	10/16/06 7:01 a.m.
Re: Terminology questions	Forrest of B.org	10/16/06 7:28 a.m.
accepted	MrHen	10/16/06 8:16 a.m.
Re: accepted	Document	10/17/06 2:37 p.m.
My own terminology question	RyokoTK	10/16/06 3:36 p.m.
Re: My own terminology question	MrHen	10/16/06 4:01 p.m.
Re: My own terminology question	RyokoTK	10/16/06 4:48 p.m.
perhaps...	MrHen	10/16/06 5:18 p.m.
Re: My own terminology question	Document	10/17/06 11:51 a.m.
Like Halo? NM	MrHen	10/17/06 3:30 p.m.
Re: My own terminology question	Forrest of B.org	10/16/06 6:19 p.m.
on The Player	MrHen	10/16/06 8:11 a.m.
Re: on The Player	Document	10/17/06 3:04 p.m.
dissenting opinions, but flexible	MrHen	10/17/06 3:49 p.m.
Re: dissenting opinions, but flexible	Forrest of B.org	10/18/06 7:07 a.m.
Now we are getting somewhere	MrHen	10/18/06 8:55 a.m.
Re: Now we are getting somewhere	Aaron Sikes	10/18/06 9:58 a.m.
Re: Now we are getting somewhere	RyokoTK	10/18/06 11:56 a.m.
Re: Now we are getting somewhere	MrHen	10/18/06 1:27 p.m.
whoops, forgot a point	MrHen	10/18/06 1:30 p.m.
Re: whoops, forgot a point	Forrest of B.org	10/18/06 2:13 p.m.
That's what I'm saying.	RyokoTK	10/18/06 2:39 p.m.
I agree, but come to a different conclusion	MrHen	10/18/06 3:41 p.m.
Re: I agree, but come to a different conclusion	RyokoTK	10/18/06 3:54 p.m.
Re: I agree, but come to a different conclusion	Forrest of B.org	10/18/06 4:05 p.m.
this is getting more off-topic...	MrHen	10/18/06 4:22 p.m.
Re: this is getting more off-topic...	Forrest of B.org	10/18/06 6:31 p.m.
my bad...	MrHen	10/19/06 4:48 a.m.
Re: I agree, but come to a different conclusion	MrHen	10/18/06 4:13 p.m.
Re: whoops, forgot a point	MrHen	10/18/06 3:26 p.m.
Re: Now we are getting somewhere	Document	10/19/06 8:52 a.m.
Re: Now we are getting somewhere	Forrest of B.org	10/19/06 6:52 p.m.
Re: Now we are getting somewhere	Forrest of B.org	10/18/06 2:01 p.m.
Almost there...	MrHen	10/18/06 3:50 p.m.
Re: dissenting opinions, but flexible	Forrest of B.org	10/18/06 2:22 p.m.
now that makes sense (final draft?)	MrHen	10/18/06 3:53 p.m.
Final Draft?	Forrest of B.org	10/18/06 4:13 p.m.
Re: Final Draft?	Document	10/18/06 4:27 p.m.
Good. shakes hands of everyone	MrHen	10/18/06 4:28 p.m.
Re: Good. shakes hands of everyone	Document	10/19/06 8:33 a.m.
:) Go for it. NM	MrHen	10/19/06 9:20 a.m.
Re: Good. shakes hands of everyone	Forrest of B.org	10/19/06 6:55 p.m.
Re: now that makes sense (final draft?)	Document	10/18/06 4:33 p.m.
Agreed NM	Document	10/18/06 3:55 p.m.
Re: dissenting opinions, but flexible	Document	10/24/06 1:47 p.m.
in-universe or out-of-universe?	MrHen	10/24/06 4:41 p.m.
Re: on The Player	Document	10/24/06 2:08 p.m.
that solves that. ;) NM	MrHen	10/24/06 4:33 p.m.
Re: Terminology questions	treellama	10/16/06 11:21 a.m.
Or Jason Jones? NM	MrHen	10/16/06 11:27 a.m.
Re: Terminology questions	Document	10/17/06 11:41 a.m.
exctend=extend NM*	Document	10/17/06 11:45 a.m.
Re: Terminology questions	RyokoTK	10/17/06 12:53 p.m.
Re: Terminology questions	MrHen	10/17/06 3:51 p.m.



	Your Name:
	Your E-Mail Address:
	Subject:
	Message: : How about "Player character"? : In video game terminology (as borrowed from role-play terminology), : "Player character" is used to signify an active agent in the : game which a player controls. Since the only time a player of Marathon : really has a character worthy of mention is in the solo game, this picks : out precisely the 10th Mjolnir Mk IV cyborg / Recon 54 / the Security : Officer. I'd suggest calling the article that; but again, elsewhere you : can refer to him as something else like "the Security Officer" : which is all we really know of him. Other characters, of course, would : never refer to him as "the player-character" as that would break : the fourth wall. : On the same line, NPC (non-player character) is used to refer to any active : agent in the game who is not player-controlled. In a pen and paper role : playing game, they are controlled by the game master; in a video game, : they're controlled by the game's AI. In other words, Bobs and aliens and : all the drones and whatnot. Often modern players will simply call such : units in games "AIs", but in Marathon that would confuse us with : Tycho, Leela, Durandal, et al. Those "AIs" are not properly : speaking NPCs in this sense, though they are "characters" in the : story, they are not characters in the same sense as a Bob or a Fighter are : - they are not physically present. Such physically present agents are : often also called "units", which may be a term you'd like to use : for a category of "monsters" in the Anvil sense (though I'm not : really sure each unit deserves it's own page or anything). You'd probably : want story-related info about them categorized elsewhere under : "races" instead; include links to the unit-articles from each : main race's page (e.g. the Pfhor page refers to the Fighter page and the : Trooper page, etc). : I'd suggest that the category for literary characters (including Durandal, : Robert Blake, and the Player-character) be called "characters", : the category for in-game units (including Fighters, Drones, and Bobs) be : called "units", and the category for races be called (duh) : "races" (including Humans, S'pht, Pfhor, etc). And the article : about the player's character be called "Player character", just : as an article about Fight Club's mysterious narrator would likely be : called "Narrator". : (Incidentally, we have this same problem in the Myth community, where the : person whose journal it is we hear the entire story through is just : "The Journal Writer", since he never refers to himself by name. : It's doubly bad there since TFL and Myth II were written by separate : authors, and the latter comes across the former's journal. What do we say : then? "The Journal Writer 2 came across The Journal Writer 1's : journal?" It gets awkward).
	If you'd like to include a link to another page with your message, please provide both the URL address and the title of the page:
	Optional Link URL:
	Optional Link Title:
	If necessary, enter your password below:
	Password: