Now we are getting somewhere


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

Now we are getting somewhere

Posted By: MrHen Date: 10/18/06 8:55 a.m.
In Response To: Re: dissenting opinions, but flexible (Forrest of B.org)

: How about "Player character"?
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.
"Main character" is still my top vote, just because it sounds nicer and fits better in looking at Marathon Story as a story and not as a game. But I would be happy with "Player character".
Articles like "Security Officer" would still exist, but they would probably redirect into "Player character" or "Main character" to keep things tidy.
: 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".
I like this.
"Characters"
"Units"
"Races"
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.
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.
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.
The reason I am bringing all of this up now, is that it is much easier to have the discussion and make a decision before everything is created. It avoids someone coming through in three years and complaining that we included AI in the Races category because AIs are not technically Races and to stop calling the Main character the Player because it makes no sense and what the fuzz is a Unit?
Working it all out now and stamping rules on the classification of things prevents major rewrites in the future due to "just putting it there for now".
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"?
My preference is there, but it is not terribly large. "Main character" would make linking a lot easier and more readable, in my opinion. Less work is good. :) Proper definitions are also good... :P
: (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).
Ha, ouch. While I have always liked characters who did not have names, genders, races, and the like, it makes categorizing them a nightmare.

[ 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:
: 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. : "Main character" is still my top vote, just because it sounds nicer : and fits better in looking at Marathon Story as a story and not as a game. : But I would be happy with "Player character". : Articles like "Security Officer" would still exist, but they would : probably redirect into "Player character" or "Main : character" to keep things tidy. : I like this. : "Characters" : "Units" : "Races" : 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. : 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. : 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. : The reason I am bringing all of this up now, is that it is much easier to : have the discussion and make a decision before everything is created. It : avoids someone coming through in three years and complaining that we : included AI in the Races category because AIs are not technically Races : and to stop calling the Main character the Player because it makes no : sense and what the fuzz is a Unit? : Working it all out now and stamping rules on the classification of things : prevents major rewrites in the future due to "just putting it there : for now". : 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"? : My preference is there, but it is not terribly large. "Main : character" would make linking a lot easier and more readable, in my : opinion. Less work is good. :) Proper definitions are also good... :P : Ha, ouch. While I have always liked characters who did not have names, : genders, races, and the like, it makes categorizing them a nightmare.

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: : 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. : "Main character" is still my top vote, just because it sounds nicer : and fits better in looking at Marathon Story as a story and not as a game. : But I would be happy with "Player character". : Articles like "Security Officer" would still exist, but they would : probably redirect into "Player character" or "Main : character" to keep things tidy. : I like this. : "Characters" : "Units" : "Races" : 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. : 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. : 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. : The reason I am bringing all of this up now, is that it is much easier to : have the discussion and make a decision before everything is created. It : avoids someone coming through in three years and complaining that we : included AI in the Races category because AIs are not technically Races : and to stop calling the Main character the Player because it makes no : sense and what the fuzz is a Unit? : Working it all out now and stamping rules on the classification of things : prevents major rewrites in the future due to "just putting it there : for now". : 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"? : My preference is there, but it is not terribly large. "Main : character" would make linking a lot easier and more readable, in my : opinion. Less work is good. :) Proper definitions are also good... :P : Ha, ouch. While I have always liked characters who did not have names, : genders, races, and the like, it makes categorizing them a nightmare.
	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: