My own terminology question


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

My own terminology question

Posted By: RyokoTK Date: 10/16/06 3:36 p.m.
In Response To: Re: Terminology questions (Forrest of B.org)

: I agree on both counts here: call the player article The Player (I think I
: suggested that on the Talk page a long time ago), though you can refer to
: him elsewhere as "the Security Officer", "Recon 54",
: or "The 10th Mjolnir Mk IV Cyborg" if you like, and it's
: appropriate in context.
If you really want to save space, call him the SO (Security Officer). However, I would agree with The Player as a perfectly acceptable name. "Marine" is an okay term, though not strictly canon; you could argue that the SO tends to act as, say, the US Marines do.
The question that I have, however, is this: How should in-game terminal characters refer to the SO? The games (and, specifically, third party scenarios) tend to lead toward calling the SO "Marine," but that doesn't really resonate with me; I've always thought of Doomguy as a Marine. And we all know that Doomguy is a wuss compared to the SO. On the other hand, "Destiny" seems a bit too dorky, SO too impersonal, and so forth.
: As for non-player characters, if you're referring to aliens in a sense
: excluding Bobs, then I'd say that "aliens" works fine. However,
: if you want a term inclusive of Bobs, then "NPCs" (non-player
: characters) is probably best.
I just call 'em monsters. Gets the point across.

[ 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:
: If you really want to save space, call him the SO (Security Officer). : However, I would agree with The Player as a perfectly acceptable name. : "Marine" is an okay term, though not strictly canon; you could : argue that the SO tends to act as, say, the US Marines do. : The question that I have, however, is this: How should in-game terminal : characters refer to the SO? The games (and, specifically, third party : scenarios) tend to lead toward calling the SO "Marine," but that : doesn't really resonate with me; I've always thought of Doomguy as a : Marine. And we all know that Doomguy is a wuss compared to the SO. On the : other hand, "Destiny" seems a bit too dorky, SO too impersonal, : and so forth. : I just call 'em monsters. Gets the point across.

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: : If you really want to save space, call him the SO (Security Officer). : However, I would agree with The Player as a perfectly acceptable name. : "Marine" is an okay term, though not strictly canon; you could : argue that the SO tends to act as, say, the US Marines do. : The question that I have, however, is this: How should in-game terminal : characters refer to the SO? The games (and, specifically, third party : scenarios) tend to lead toward calling the SO "Marine," but that : doesn't really resonate with me; I've always thought of Doomguy as a : Marine. And we all know that Doomguy is a wuss compared to the SO. On the : other hand, "Destiny" seems a bit too dorky, SO too impersonal, : and so forth. : I just call 'em monsters. Gets the point across.
	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: