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

	Almost there...
	Posted By: MrHen	Date: 10/18/06 3:50 p.m.
	In Response To: Re: Now we are getting somewhere (Forrest of B.org) : 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. Oh, I agree with how you are thinking about "Player character". "Player-character" would probably make it easier to use... so yeah. English would state that we would use it by referring to the player's character. But I do not like that at all... :P : 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. Yeah, we agree on that. :) : 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. BoBs are probably the biggest. They do not have to be formal groups or organizations. Maybe groups is better... less cool, but a broader definition. The reason I was planning on them was because under the original category of "Aliens", BoBs had nowhere to go. But as I mentioned, it is really unneeded for now. I brought it up for more of a sanity check to make sure there would be room for it in the future and it did not collide with anything else we have so far. : 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. Maybe Races -> Mechanical would work? Drones would work too. : 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. Should cyborgs just be a stand-alone category? There are enough of them to get their own category, but should that category be a sub-category of something like Races? : I borrowed the term mostly from the Myth community, where all creatures : moving about on the map are referred to as "units". Ah, that makes sense. : 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. Yeah, that makes sense. I tend to think of it as a story first, game second, but that is because I really am a story nut. But you won me over, see your other post.

[ 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