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

	Re: Now we are getting somewhere
	Posted By: Forrest of B.org	Date: 10/18/06 2:01 p.m.
	In Response To: Now we are getting somewhere (MrHen) : Hm. I like it, but still think there is something missing... would there be : an article for the "Security Officer" and "Player : character"? I am assuming that there would be a difference between : "Player character" and "Player". They are different : things, so that makes sense. : "Player character" sounds a little awkward, but I could get used to : it. Trying to fit it into the English language would be the hardest part : for me to get used to: "Durandal often refers to the [[player : character]] as human in a derogatory manner." : I find that "Durandal often refers to the [[main character]] as human in : a derogatory manner." reads a little nicer. The more English way of : using "Player character" would be to say "Durandal often : refers to the player's character as human in a derogatory manner." : but this makes linking a pain. Perhaps "player-character" should be hyphenated. The way I read it in my head, "player" is being used as a modifier for "character"; like "the bathroom sink" specifies a particular sink (the one in the bathroom), "the player character" specifies a particular character (the one controlled by the player). I believe in certain high northern European (e.g. Scandinavian) languages these types of phrases are concatenated into single words to avoid such confusion. The closest English approximation seems to be hyphenation. : Articles like "Security Officer" would still exist, but they would : probably redirect into "Player character" or "Main : character" to keep things tidy. Right, I'm not at all suggesting there be a separate article titled "Security Officer" (other than as a redirect). Only that in context elsewhere, you might want, for some reason, to refer to the player character by another name like "The Security Officer", and that that seems fine to me. : That totally works for me. I would probably add a "Groups" or : "Organizations", but that would be an addition for a much later : date because we have better things to write about for now. And there are very few of them known in the Marathon universe. The UESC/UEG (that's another question: one article there or two? if only one, then what do we call it?). The MIDA insurgents. Do the S'pht Clans and Pfhor Battle Groups all count as their own unique organizations? There's not a whole lot to say about any of these groups one way or another. : Would AI, cyborgs, and robots fit in "Races"? I would probably : stick them there just so they have a place to stay. All three are : basically races, it is just splitting hairs on definitions. I'd say yes, for the reasons you just gave. There aren't really any known "robots" in the game, so maybe "drones" as a race (including MADDs and Pfhor drones and possibly Juggernauts if they are all-mechanical). AIs as a race, sure. I'm not really sure cyborgs qualify as a race... after all, all S'pht are cyborgs and they are their own race, and all other know cyborgs are either of the Mjolnir variety, the Pfhor-built Human cyborg slaves (the "tanks" introduced in M2), or the Pfhor controller cyborg we killed in M1. : As for "Units", what they are may not be intuitive to someone : outside of the Marathon community, but it beats anything else. This could : eventually be expanded to include more of the minor things about the : Marathon games, but that is a future problem. I borrowed the term mostly from the Myth community, where all creatures moving about on the map are referred to as "units". : But I am happy with everything. I think the only decision to flesh out is : "Main character" vs. "Player character". Any final : thoughts? At this point I am still leaning toward "Main : character". Does that work for you? Or do you really prefer : "Player character"? I really prefer player character, though main character doesn't make me cringe or anything. It's just that Marathon IS a game, so keeping things in game terms makes most sense to me; "main character" makes me think we're talking about a book or movie.

[ 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