MA cliches: What to avoid in your new Arc.
By
Aces_High,
Posted on: 2009-04-22 06:15 in Mission Architect
Then maybe you shouldn't pick up a term with a dozen definitions, attach ANOTHER definition to it, and then wield it.
What you are saying is no one should use the term, ever.
No.
Current Blog Post: "Why I am an Atheist..."
"And I say now these kittens, they do not get trained/As we did in the days when Victoria reigned!" -- T. S. Eliot, "Gus, the Theatre Cat"
I have no problem with Venture's use of 'Mary Sue'. I've seen the term used outside of fanfic, typically to describe Wesley Crusher. And here we actually have CoH fans, creating fictions! If someone comes up with another term for an Author Insert That Steals the Limelight From the Player, go for it.
To 37, the reasons Venture's famous/infamous is because he was one of the earliest reviewers for MA. Venture being there from 'the beginning' could be defined as making him a deity. But I'm being facetious.
Venture is also very hardworking, which I think the devs appreciate. Venture's style is often divisive, which provides entertainment. That's fine by me. Venture once made a review personal, so he's not perfect. I'd like to imagine he is still improving too.
I appreciate every one of the reviewers on Lazarus' reviewer-list-post, and all those unrecognized reviewers getting lost in the thread-pile. Keep up the great work all!
Arc: 379017: Outbroken See all your old friends in the Outbreak Tutorial sequel!
Arc: Coming Soon: The Incarnate Shadow Shard of Fire and Ice Mender Rednem needs you!
Massively.com opinion poll: Please Help Save CoH!
[ QUOTE ]
What you are saying is no one should use the term, ever.
No.
[/ QUOTE ]No, I'm saying that if you want to use a term repeatedly for a specific problem inside mission arc reviews, either coin a term, or use something with that agreed-upon definition without increasing ambiguity. You know, communicating an idea with words. I'm sure there's a page about that on tvtropes.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What you are saying is no one should use the term, ever.
No.
[/ QUOTE ]No, I'm saying that if you want to use a term repeatedly for a specific problem inside mission arc reviews, either coin a term, or use something with that agreed-upon definition without increasing ambiguity. You know, communicating an idea with words. I'm sure there's a page about that on tvtropes.
[/ QUOTE ]
That mission was Jerkin'!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see the definintional issues being any different here than they are in fanfic. No one in fanfic circles agrees on what a Mary Sue is, either. If I were critiquing fanfic I'd still have to pick a definition and stick to it.
[/ QUOTE ]Then maybe you shouldn't pick up a term with a dozen definitions, attach ANOTHER definition to it, and then wield it. It smacks of a desire to create a lexicon - not in the natural, communal way that actual lexicons are created, but in the nasty imposing fashion of a fascist editor.
[/ QUOTE ]
Mary/Marty Sues show up in other places, I'm just using writing fanfiction because that was one of the first locations I'd ever heard the term and, let me tell you, that is one genre that hates the character type with a passion... More than Venture does.
In the CoX theme, I would probably classify a Mary/Marty Sue as a "shameless self-insert" without rhyme, reason, or plot. Making an arc just for the sake of showcasing how bad*** your character is would be a very good example of an MS. Having that character "outclass" the players would fit right into this situation. Attaching a sub-standard story to it would make it an even worse crime.
Now, if someone does an arc where the Player(s) rescue someone's character because they goofed and got in over their head, that's something else entirely. But, even that has to be done with a certain amount of finesse.
The purpose of MA is to create a story that you want to share with other people. In many ways, this is like an interactive version of fanfiction. The writer of the arc is still telling a story, but they've got more visual tools to work with for it. That both simplifies and complicates things for some people.
SG Leader "Knights of Tir Asleen"
"I am a humanoid... I get really annoyed at the things humans do."
"Shepherd" ID: 135806 - Heroic Morality Story Arc
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What you are saying is no one should use the term, ever.
No.
[/ QUOTE ]No, I'm saying that if you want to use a term repeatedly for a specific problem inside mission arc reviews, either coin a term, or use something with that agreed-upon definition without increasing ambiguity. You know, communicating an idea with words. I'm sure there's a page about that on tvtropes.
[/ QUOTE ]
That mission was Jerkin'!
[/ QUOTE ]
Heh, before running into the tropes stuff here, that with Circle was how I would in my own mind label the self insertion/aggrandization.
Self Insertion is an interesting term, if intended euphamistically.
Look TV Tropes is not intended to be a list of cliches or things to avoid when writing. It says so on the front page.
Besides if you tell a story, you are inevitably going to use at least one trope listed on that site. If you inentionally tried to avoid everything on that page, you would have a blank MA file.
Furthermore, some cliches are universal
My Blogs on TGWTG.com
Angels of Wrath/Evilnighters/Legion of Catgirls
Mission Arc: #352860 - RJ The Road Dog: Big Trouble in Little Tokyo
No, I'm saying that if you want to use a term repeatedly for a specific problem inside mission arc reviews, either coin a term, or use something with that agreed-upon definition without increasing ambiguity.
I'm sorry but there's nothing increasing ambiguity here. There just isn't. Language is ambiguous by nature, about the only useful thing deconstructionism has to say. Every academic paper or book I've ever read takes terms that have a lot of baggage attached to them and uses them in very precise ways, either implicitly or explicitly conveying how the author is using the term.
What, exactly, would be improved if I said self-indulgent author insertion instead of Mary Sue? I would expect the vast majority of readers would say to themselves "oh, he means a Mary Sue". I don't expect any smaller proportion would ask me to clarify that term than have asked what a Mary Sue is. N.B. that I did essentially coin/swipe the term "just a bunch of stuff that happened" for a story problem and not only did the community figure out what I meant by it but I'm seeing it crop up in other peoples' reviews now. This tells me that people around here can figure this language thing out for themselves, requiring neither a caretaker nor writers who restrict themselves to small words.
Bottom line, I am not changing the way I write to make you or anyone else here happy. As I have said many times before, I am not Burger King; you cannot Have Me Your Way. If you don't like the way I write, don't read it.
Current Blog Post: "Why I am an Atheist..."
"And I say now these kittens, they do not get trained/As we did in the days when Victoria reigned!" -- T. S. Eliot, "Gus, the Theatre Cat"
[ QUOTE ]
No, I'm saying that if you want to use a term repeatedly for a specific problem inside mission arc reviews, either coin a term, or use something with that agreed-upon definition without increasing ambiguity.
I'm sorry but there's nothing increasing ambiguity here. There just isn't. Language is ambiguous by nature, about the only useful thing deconstructionism has to say. Every academic paper or book I've ever read takes terms that have a lot of baggage attached to them and uses them in very precise ways, either implicitly or explicitly conveying how the author is using the term.
What, exactly, would be improved if I said self-indulgent author insertion instead of Mary Sue? I would expect the vast majority of readers would say to themselves "oh, he means a Mary Sue". I don't expect any smaller proportion would ask me to clarify that term than have asked what a Mary Sue is. N.B. that I did essentially coin/swipe the term "just a bunch of stuff that happened" for a story problem and not only did the community figure out what I meant by it but I'm seeing it crop up in other peoples' reviews now. This tells me that people around here can figure this language thing out for themselves, requiring neither a caretaker nor writers who restrict themselves to small words.
Bottom line, I am not changing the way I write to make you or anyone else here happy. As I have said many times before, I am not Burger King; you cannot Have Me Your Way. If you don't like the way I write, don't read it.
[/ QUOTE ]
I completely agree with Venture.
Regardless of what someone calls the Mary Sue stigma, the point is it's something to be avoided in a story arc. Identify it any way you want. The bottom line is almost no one likes Mary Sue... except her writer.
On another subject that's related to the original topic, I'd like to toss in that people working on plots which deal with changing someone's morality should really think it through. Ask yourself the question: "Would I fall for this hook, line, and sinker?" I recently got myself exposed to a "please review" arc that had a 'morality shift' plot which was so full of holes, bowling balls could have leaked through.
I'm one of those people who does not like to see an "elite" hero dummied down to the intellect of a two year old. It doesn't matter who's character it is. It makes my head hit my desk, a lot, and gives me the worst headache. Treat the characters involved in your arcs as if they had their own minds.
And for the love of all that's holy, treat the players as if they had their own minds. If you know the plot wouldn't work, then tweak it until it does.
SG Leader "Knights of Tir Asleen"
"I am a humanoid... I get really annoyed at the things humans do."
"Shepherd" ID: 135806 - Heroic Morality Story Arc
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry but there's nothing increasing ambiguity here. There just isn't. Language is ambiguous by nature, about the only useful thing deconstructionism has to say.
[/ QUOTE ]In essence, you're saying 'because people can misunderstand me, I am under no obligation to say things that are understandable.'
Fair enough I suppose, but this is not me wanting you to write a way that satisfies me. This is me offering a suggestion for how you could go about writing something more meaningful than simply providing a link to TVTropes.
Though, since I am curious about a misapprehension I think I was labouring under: Have you worked as an editor? I thought that you'd mentioned something along those lines months past, regarding Everquest. I think trolls were involved.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know how to ask this without sounding like the ultimate D-bag... so I will just come out and say it: Venture, how is it that you have become the self-appointed critic and venerated "deity" of mission writing? Why does anyone care what you think?
[/ QUOTE ]
You should ask CaptainAmazing, he's the one who's asking Venture permission to create a new character. I'm still trying to figure out if he's concern trolling.
Character index
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know how to ask this without sounding like the ultimate D-bag... so I will just come out and say it: Venture, how is it that you have become the self-appointed critic and venerated "deity" of mission writing? Why does anyone care what you think?
[/ QUOTE ]
You should ask CaptainAmazing, he's the one who's asking Venture permission to create a new character. I'm still trying to figure out if he's concern trolling.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wait just a minute. Venture's been at this longer then ANYONE. Why wouldn't I ask him? Don't assume, it's dangerous 
Venture's got the know how to figure out whats right and wrong to use in this game, the following behind him shows you as much. He tells you whats good and bad, and even Positron has endorsed him o.o!
HOW, is that trolling? o.0
-C.A.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know how to ask this without sounding like the ultimate D-bag... so I will just come out and say it: Venture, how is it that you have become the self-appointed critic and venerated "deity" of mission writing? Why does anyone care what you think?
[/ QUOTE ]
You should ask CaptainAmazing, he's the one who's asking Venture permission to create a new character. I'm still trying to figure out if he's concern trolling.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wait just a minute. Venture's been at this longer then ANYONE. Why wouldn't I ask him? Don't assume, it's dangerous Venture's got the know how to figure out whats right and wrong to use in this game, the following behind him shows you as much. He tells you whats good and bad, and even Positron has endorsed him o.o!
HOW, is that trolling? o.0
[/ QUOTE ]
Various people - including Venture himself - have explained to you, *repeatedly*, that just because he started his own review thread first and got a single "nice job" nod from a redname does not make him any sort of authority on what goes into MA arcs or on anything else in the game. And yet here you are, *asking him permission* - not even to write a particular storyarc, but to *roll a character with a particular concept*.
The only explanation I can see is that you're trying to "teach Venture a lesson" by playing the part of a hopelessly naive forumgoer who will not do anything ingame without Venture's permission. You're expecting him to go "Oh noes, the poor confused easily-swayed players are treating me as the go-to authority now, I guess I should stop posting so they can go back to enjoying the game however they like".
Character index
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know how to ask this without sounding like the ultimate D-bag... so I will just come out and say it: Venture, how is it that you have become the self-appointed critic and venerated "deity" of mission writing? Why does anyone care what you think?
[/ QUOTE ]
You should ask CaptainAmazing, he's the one who's asking Venture permission to create a new character. I'm still trying to figure out if he's concern trolling.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wait just a minute. Venture's been at this longer then ANYONE. Why wouldn't I ask him? Don't assume, it's dangerous Venture's got the know how to figure out whats right and wrong to use in this game, the following behind him shows you as much. He tells you whats good and bad, and even Positron has endorsed him o.o!
HOW, is that trolling? o.0
[/ QUOTE ]
Various people - including Venture himself - have explained to you, *repeatedly*, that just because he started his own review thread first and got a single "nice job" nod from a redname does not make him any sort of authority on what goes into MA arcs or on anything else in the game. And yet here you are, *asking him permission* - not even to write a particular storyarc, but to *roll a character with a particular concept*.
The only explanation I can see is that you're trying to "teach Venture a lesson" by playing the part of a hopelessly naive forumgoer who will not do anything ingame without Venture's permission. You're expecting him to go "Oh noes, the poor confused easily-swayed players are treating me as the go-to authority now, I guess I should stop posting so they can go back to enjoying the game however they like".
[/ QUOTE ]
As outlandish a theory as that is, I suppose if I were to look at it from your perspective, I could understand that conclusion o.@ However, Venture's the top of the food chain, despite the fact anyone likes it or not o.0 I think we need to take his advice and his conclusions, and implement them. We may not run into so many issues down the road. Had these standards been around, would we have had farms? o.0 If a redname goes out of their way to tell a person that they are doing a good job, one can easily say that this is a supportive action. It shows that THIS is the correct way of doing things, otherwise, why would a personal opinion be expressed on the boards by an official? Devs have gone out of their way to make sure they stress that anything thats said that doesn't include their area of responsibility is a personal opinion. Positron is in charge of everything o.0
As far as the character, it was a passing thought. He's obviously well versed, and I would value any input, but I don't think in the end I would stab the idea DOWN if he told me it was wanting o.0 Anyone who'd do that, is scary.
Granted, someone sat down and talked with me and showed me how something like this MAY come up, I didn't think it would be depicted as such, but then again, I'm not looking for trouble. I've calmed down a bit, I was drunk on the wisdom for lack of a better term, and got a bit rabid. I apologized, and we went along with it.
In fact this is the first I've heard of it. I don't have the time or the patience to try to envoke what your accuse me of trying. :P
As far as your ending paragraph, Venture's disposition is almost hard wired against empathy from what I can gather from his brutal honesty. I don't believe it would even be possible for him to feel that way about anyone o.0
I thank you for your feedback on the matter however!
-C.A
Captain A, you do realize it's ok to have your own thoughts and opinions on things. You don't have to find a person to follow and think for you. Really, it is OK.
Or you can just stop [censored] worrying and just write the arcs you want to write. Quit sucking up to Venture already and just get on with it. You're acting like he can hand out Dev Choice awards or ensure you Hall of Fame status.
As I said, someone sat down with me and put many things into perspective. But thank you for the advice ^^
[ QUOTE ]
What, exactly, would be improved if I said self-indulgent author insertion instead of Mary Sue? I would expect the vast majority of readers would say to themselves "oh, he means a Mary Sue". I don't expect any smaller proportion would ask me to clarify that term than have asked what a Mary Sue is.
...people around here can figure this language thing out for themselves, requiring neither a caretaker nor writers who restrict themselves to small words.
[/ QUOTE ]
Does that last bit count as reverse condensension to the general player or is it just plain patronizing of Talen? 
Actually, Mary Sue as a term is clear... as mud. You've said yourself noone agrees on an exact definition. This started as a term in Star Trek fanfiction for Haysus' sake. It presumes a certain level of geekiness.
I appreciate you introducing me to TVtropes. Its an entertaining site. I lost an afternoon just following links there.
I use my gf as a barometer on whether terms such as Mary Sue make sense. Even after an explanation based on the tropes site, it was still clear... as mud.
"Self-insertion" more than adequately indicates the mastur... I mean, self-love qualities of a Mary Sue character. It would just be a lot clearer to your readers what you mean.
In this one case, you're being too stubborn Vent.
Although I personally think Mary Sue is fine, I vote for using "Statesman" as the new term. He is the pet character of the original lead designer of COH (from his Champions PnP days if I remember correctly), and he and the other Freedom Phalanx set the stage for them being the main characters of the story rather than the players themselves. The mechanics only further support this by placing the Phalanx as a bunch of level 53 AV class characters in their arguable "true" form. Something players can never hope to be.
Might also help drive home the point that dev content is not perfect 
Infatum on Virtueverse
I don't care what the term is. It's just an excuse for Venture and his followers to grief the ratings.
My Blogs on TGWTG.com
Angels of Wrath/Evilnighters/Legion of Catgirls
Mission Arc: #352860 - RJ The Road Dog: Big Trouble in Little Tokyo
[ QUOTE ]
I don't care what the term is. It's just an excuse for Venture and his followers to grief the ratings.
[/ QUOTE ]
One person not liking your arc and giving it a low rating isn't griefing. It's one person not liking your arc and SHOCK! giving it a low rating because of it.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't care what the term is. It's just an excuse for Venture and his followers to grief the ratings.
[/ QUOTE ]
One person not liking your arc and giving it a low rating isn't griefing. It's one person not liking your arc and SHOCK! giving it a low rating because of it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not every person on here has enough sycophant brownshirt followers to sink an arc either.
My Blogs on TGWTG.com
Angels of Wrath/Evilnighters/Legion of Catgirls
Mission Arc: #352860 - RJ The Road Dog: Big Trouble in Little Tokyo
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't care what the term is. It's just an excuse for Venture and his followers to grief the ratings.
[/ QUOTE ]
One person not liking your arc and giving it a low rating isn't griefing. It's one person not liking your arc and SHOCK! giving it a low rating because of it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not every person on here has enough sycophant brownshirt followers to sink an arc either.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm frankly not aware of this supposed army that Venture has. Where do I get my own army? That'd be pretty awesome.
I propose that Venture run a disclaimer with all his reviews.
Something like:
WARNING: this review will rely heavily on terminology from TVtropes. It is intended as shorthand, but it may require you to read a webpage, or several for related terms, to comprehend.
As I've said, the website is entertaining, but it by no means has universal or even general acceptance in mainstream criticism. Many of the terms are arbitrary, or rely on obscure references that even the most versed in pop culture are unlikely to get. Xanatos anyone? Or the definition of a term evaporates almost as soon as you close the webpage. I read the lampshade page, but I couldn't define it for you w/out, once again, going to the site.
Shorthand is only shorthand if its generally accepted. So if venture intends to disseminate these terms... great. More power to 'im. In the meantime, there's always that disclaimer...
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see the definintional issues being any different here than they are in fanfic. No one in fanfic circles agrees on what a Mary Sue is, either. If I were critiquing fanfic I'd still have to pick a definition and stick to it.
[/ QUOTE ]Then maybe you shouldn't pick up a term with a dozen definitions, attach ANOTHER definition to it, and then wield it. It smacks of a desire to create a lexicon - not in the natural, communal way that actual lexicons are created, but in the nasty imposing fashion of a fascist editor.