|
Cliches
Nov 23, 2006 12:57:22 GMT -5
Post by Neo Samurai on Nov 23, 2006 12:57:22 GMT -5
I want to start a discussion on this. This seems to be a very controversial topic.
It seems to me that there are some people that love to see cliches in games while there are others that loathe them. I want to see what everyone's take on the subject is.
I chose "They should be avoided". Cliches usually detract from the originality of a game and make it feel the same as every other game out on the market. However, I think there are times when cliches may be necessary.
Anyway, my own game starts with a popular cliche. My characters begin in a band of rebels. However, I think that their reason for being in it is a lot stronger than "to stop the evil empire" or whatever.
If anyone has ever read up on the Meiji Era of Japan, you've read about how the samurai greatly declined and that Western culture began to greatly influence Japan.
Almost the same thing is happening in my own game, only the characters aren't really samurai, just regular villagers and townfolk rallied up by a select few to try to prevent the influence of the neighboring country.
So, what are your opinions on cliches?
|
|
DYRE
RPG Making Novice
Posts: 61
|
Cliches
Nov 23, 2006 14:09:57 GMT -5
Post by DYRE on Nov 23, 2006 14:09:57 GMT -5
I voted that they should be avoided, but really, it doesn't affect me too much. I only really mind if the game has ideas directly ripped from another game, book, movie, or whatever.
|
|
|
Cliches
Nov 23, 2006 15:38:50 GMT -5
Post by realitybites on Nov 23, 2006 15:38:50 GMT -5
Some cliches are ok, IF you can make the rest of your game original, theres really nothing wrong with a few cliches here and there, its how well you make it is what decides a cliche idea or an original.
|
|
|
Cliches
Nov 23, 2006 21:07:21 GMT -5
Post by vespuleth on Nov 23, 2006 21:07:21 GMT -5
I didn't vote. It seems today that the very idea 'cliche' has been cliched. what do i mean? its like how in science everything is a theory. it cheapens the power of the word. when everything is a cliche, nothing is. There is a very thin line between a 'cliche' and an appropriate character template. in writing, these templates are a necessary part of the process. for instance: most games will have an innocent/victim and a villan/manipulator. 'the innocent' is actually an archeatype in literature. it has to be used. there is also the problem of aristotle characterization (that is where for every character trait you must have a conglomerate balance; for instance, if you have a completely good person, you may not have a completely bad person, but you should have a cummulative bad to balance the good: this is necessary in a relative sense to demonstrate the 'goodness' of the good character... i hope that makes sense).
what i think is the problem is that we tend to see everything as a cliche. for instance, someone recently stated a character was cliche only to find out that the character was based upon the writer. this often happens because most writers write parts of themselves into all of their characters. This is how the writer is capable of relating to their characters well enough to bring them to life.
I also think that the 'cliche' ness is due to its lack of development. Anything described in a few sentences will seem to fit some cliche. this is why i tell my students to write to develop characters rather than tell stories. Think about it: if you can break a characterization of a person into a few short lines, then what does that tell you about the sum of their experiences? I know its a bit existential, but characterization happens not through traits but through actions taken or not taken. If a complete characterization can be given without the story, then there is no story.
I know this seems a bit extreme, but to me its realistic. I can't be broken down into a few sentences. We have 'about me's' that everyone is changing all the time. most of ours are completely insufficient to cover who we are. To really describe who someone is, you wouldn't just give traits, but experiences, because the sum of the experiences is the person.
So, what am I saying? (i know, that's a lot of typing... I'm sorry). We have a lot of cliches that we don't know what to do with because we have forgotten to not seperate character from action.
Furthermore, I suggest that cliches are only as powerful as their application (much in the same way as the characterization method: character traits are only as powerful as they fit the characters actions...) sometimes cliches can be employed masterfully, and necessarily. In our rush (and doan mentions this in the stereotypes thread) in our rush to be 'not cliche' we are antithetical, and our characters tend to be just as unrealistic. This is the problem with a 'anti-sue'. you can (read: should) only have an 'anti-sue' if you have a sue (read the section on aristotle above to find out why). we shouldn't strive to avoid cliches. we should write what works. but don't work so hard to avoid them that your reader/player cannot connect themselves to the character. the same is true of cliches. everything should be natural. Which sometimes means a bit cliche, sue, anticliche, or anti sue. Good balance is necessary; dichotomy, contradiction (in our individual characters, our full cast, and our story itself.)
the best themes are questions.
I'll go ahead and apologize now because I'm sure that none of this makes sense.
|
|
KiteDXX
RPG Maker-in-Training
Posts: 10
|
Cliches
Nov 23, 2006 22:28:43 GMT -5
Post by KiteDXX on Nov 23, 2006 22:28:43 GMT -5
Personally, I really don't mind them. After all, if we avoid them as much as possible, games may become a bit too "different" for players to enjoy, if you know what I mean. At the same time, if a story is based almost exclusively on a cliched RPG (or other genre, if the creator wishes), then the game is very predictable and not as satisfying.
|
|
|
Cliches
Nov 24, 2006 5:24:15 GMT -5
Post by Rodak on Nov 24, 2006 5:24:15 GMT -5
I LOVE Cliches when handled properly!
They can be a great source of Humor!
Don't DO cliches... OVER-DO Them!
That way they become Fun.
For us Looneys anyhow...
|
|
|
Cliches
Nov 24, 2006 10:12:08 GMT -5
Post by Neo Samurai on Nov 24, 2006 10:12:08 GMT -5
I had a feeling you would vote "for" cliches, Rodak. Anway, ves, I have to say that I agree with you. It really isn't the cliches themselves, its the way they're presented. That was me who said that. I'm sorry about that, Smurf. You're right about making your characters carry a part of yourself in them. I think the reason why there are "cliched" characters is that people avoid trying to place themselves in their characters. They take generic character types from other games and place them in their games. This isn't always a bad thing, though. It's just that the writer fails to develop the character. And this brings us to the next thing you said. This is what separates two similiar plots from the other. It's really the characters that will make or break a story. This is why I rarely write about my characters' personalities in their profiles. I rather show what my character does than to write about what they're like. Don't feel sorry. This is the type of discussion I'm looking for. Again, look at what I stated above. I remember when I was like that years ago. I would keep a checklist of what cliches I had in my game and I would completely avoid having them in my game. So, therefore, it's not cliches themselves that detract from originality. It's the own writer's lack of effort that does. If someone just copies and pastes from someone elses story, that will defeat the originality of the story. But if someone writes from the soul (I know. Sounds corny), accepting any cliche or non-cliche that may appear, they can arise with a truly original story. I should be the one apologizing. I'm not sure if mine made any sense either. But anyway, I still stand by the point I made earlier. You shouldn't 'intentially' place cliches in your game. If they're naturally needed for your story, you should place them in. But otherwise, they should be avoided. (I don't know if that made any sense either, though)
|
|
|
Cliches
Nov 25, 2006 22:33:00 GMT -5
Post by Dungeon Warden on Nov 25, 2006 22:33:00 GMT -5
Hi everyone. Miss me?
I see a big problem with this topic in that everyone is using the wrong word. You are not talking about Cliches, you are talking about Redundancy and Entropy.
Redundancy: using a well known idea or image to help the reader (or viewer in the case of art - which I'm studying) identify with the work. When writing Fantasy, you need to use certain concepts that are common in all fantasy works. This helps to save you a lot of explanation that can bore the reader. In any adventure story, someone needs to be the hero and someone (or group of people) needs to be saved. A story without redundancy (i.e. something completely original) would be too hard for someone to understand or relate to. You need redundancy so that the reader can relate to what you're saying and identify with your characters.
Entropy: A decline in order or a loss of information. Basically, having things in your story that are different then the normal structure found in most plot lines. These are ideas that break away from what people normally expect. They do not need to be original, per say, they only have to break away from what people normally expect to find. For example, making a small, harmless character the main hero of your story (ex. The Hobbit).
Therefore, there is nothing wrong with cliches since they help the reader to feel comfortable with the subject matter. The problem comes when there is no entropy and the reader feels they have read your story many times before. The two work hand in hand, which is what most people have been saying. I'm just giving you the theory behind it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Cliches
Dec 10, 2006 1:49:15 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2006 1:49:15 GMT -5
Yeah, I ran my character through the Sue/Anti-Sure topic and got an 11 but didn't post because I realized at the end of it that it was for fanfics (which are the bottom of the barrel as far as writing goes, as far as I know at least) and I could see it was really just a way to show a friend that their story wasn't as original ("cool") as he/she thought. What I did afterwards was smart though: I went through all the questions I answered yes to and noted which ones to ignore and remember, because all of my yes responses except for one were questions/answers I should have ignored such as do I think my character looks cool (of course I do), and others were ones where I even knew when taking the test I should ignore such as can he cast magic in battle (gameplay has no impact on story, better he have more options in battle than just a normal attack like most fighters), so I didn't bother posting even though I do/did appreciate Neo's posting of the test (again, one question/answer that I didn't ignore).
Anywhoo, I must say that what people have posted in this topic is EXTREMELY insightful and has REALLY made me view the word cliche differently, and I really don't know what to vote for (and I don't think I will either Ves). At first I was definitely thinking 'Cliches should be avoided', but then what Ves said made me not vote. Then I thought about what I've written thus far on what COULD be a Solemn Truth 2 (though DON'T expect it) and what Dungeon Warden said and that made a whole poopload of sense too. Although on the other hand, the extreme cliches that tend to be in poorly written stories such as magical crystals and blah blah blah do annoy me quite a bit, and that I've intentionally not lengthened my game by using any such plot devices makes me hesitant to not vote for cliches should be avoided, which puts me in quite a dilemma.
I don't know exactly, but I think Ves and then Doshi make an extremely good point in that in our quest to avoid cliches we can actually make our game worse, but on the other hand one can blind oneself from seeing true faults in their game by saying and believing that there's nothing wrong with having too much redundancy (refer to Dungeon Warden's post) whatsoever. Thus it's probably a get idea to seek feedback on your story, but taking into account (as others have mentioned in this topic) that anything sounds more cliche than it really is when summarized, it's probably best to not get feedback on a summary of your story but rather a script of your story, which means you may want to just send it to one person whom you think can help you to improve your story significantly since you can't REALLY tell your story without TELLING your story.
|
|
|
Cliches
Dec 11, 2006 3:59:12 GMT -5
Post by Doan the Nado on Dec 11, 2006 3:59:12 GMT -5
I meant to reply to this a long time ago, but I read the posts and then never returned. I'm glad that Will "revived" it, because I want to agree with him that I feel there is a lot of good insight here. That sentence really stood out to me, ves (and not just because it's bold ;D). I agree with the idea that if you look at a very summarized, basic view of any character, it will typically seem cliche. Only by developing the character through its action in the plot can your character hope to escape the 1-dimensionality that we typically call "cliche". I liked DW's post too... I had never heard or even considered those two concepts, but they make a lot of sense. It's kind of like how most websites you visit have a similar format: some kind of banner on top with navigation either on top or left. If this is not the case, I usually feel like the site does not have a very good structure and is hard to navigate. The thing that makes one site different from another, however, is what makes one site different from another. Okay, sorry for my cryptic approach, but basically (along the lines of what DW was saying), as long as you're telling an original story, you don't have to worry about being cliche. That is, the simple act of telling your story implies that it will be something a little bit different from everything else (otherwise, why tell it?), and as long as that difference is significant enough, you will have a good non-cliched story. Going back to the Internet example, both Yahoo! and Google have search engines. Functionally, they both have a search box near the top with the name of the site displayed prominently, and some navigational links at the top of the page. I always use Google, though, because I just like the simple, clean interface of it, and that is where the two differ. Yahoo started out as a large collection of links that a couple students kept on a personal webpage before they realized that they could actually turn it into something profitable, and then they created one of the first search engines. Google started out with searching and added other functionality later. Clearly, they are two very different sites, but if you were explaining them to someone getting on the Internet for the first time, you might describe them both as "search engines", and then it would seem like, "if you've seen one, you've seen them all." So in case that makes no sense at all, I was trying to make an analogy in order to uphold the idea that summarization can lead to something seeming cliche, when at the source it's really not. But of course you all knew that
|
|