RPGWatch Forums - View Single Post - Gamasutra: the Semiotics of Choice
View Single Post


November 8th, 2013, 11:18
Originally Posted by Nerevarine View Post
I see your point, but can't it be both though? "Fun" without the naivety/good vs. evil focus? What I picture - just as an example - is this: What if Han Solo was the main character instead of Luke Skywalker? Solo is a very "fun" character, but part of what would make a tale surrounding him enjoyable is that he is complex and flawed in addition to being a humorous, witty character. Replacing Skywalker with Solo and giving him the force and training would be a very interesting path to follow - without the obvious good vs. evil thing.
It can potentially be that - but not to me. I'm very much a person who gets confused when something fun/implausible/stupid gets mixed with something really serious that tries to make a point about reality.

Maybe that's a weakness of mine - but I can't really help it.

That's how I felt with the Dark Knight - because Nolan was going for something dark and tried to tell a serious tale, and yet we have these ridiculous characters and action setups that have no connection with reality whatsoever. He tried to preach about human morality - and yet he placed one of the least plausible caricatures of all time in the film as someone we should take seriously (actually two such characters) - and it just doesn't work for me.

Don't get me wrong - I enjoy humor and jokes in serious movies, but the material needs to be taken seriously overall.

As for Han Solo, sorry, I don't think he's "complex" at all. Compared to Luke, sure, but there's almost no meat on his character. But that's ok - because it's a fairy tale.

Han Solo is pretty much Harrison Ford being charming - and that's about it.

That's just a basic example, but I absolutely believe that you can have a "fun" story that still has depth and complexity, getting rid of the dreadfully predictable "good vs. evil" (gee, I wonder who will win?) without going all Christopher Nolan about it.
Maybe it's possible - but I don't know if I can think of an example. Maybe that's why I tend to loathe the stuff Whedon puts out - because he has an unfortunate tendency to try his hand at being serious amidst all the fun. If he just stuck with pure fun - it'd work. Firefly, for the most part, is kinda like that - and that's why I like it a lot.

I don't think you're giving Kotor 1 enough credit . I mean, you're right to an extent, but Kotor also did a great job in adding some complexity to the morality and also presented surprisingly heady philosophical musings. I'll put this in spoilers for those that haven't played Kotor 1 yet:
This is where we'll have to disagree. It's a wonderful tale that is both moving and well told - but it's not what I would call complex or philosophical - and it's not something I would take away and use in real life as a teacher of any kind.

Again, it's Star Wars done right - but it has nothing to do with reality. Much like I don't think LotR has much to do with reality (though a few things do apply).

The Revan thing was way too constructed and without going into spoilers - it wasn't handled in a way that I consider dealing with real human psychology.

Your interpretations are your own I think YOU are giving it too much credit - or maybe you're just better at taking the implausible and giving it real meaning than I am.




Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)