something that come ofthen in thread about creation is: avoid cliche but we all know that it''s something HARD to do at least significiciently and at any scale (there always some cliche that keep because remove it create a great gap) what''s wrong with cliche (and stereotype)?? the problem is that they are overuse but the problem is that they hold meaning, and when we want to tell so hard, cliche tell them perfectly and that''s something that annoy us the question is... how to build new typology that worked the same way cliche do but aren''t standard, how to build symbolic equivalent to cliche? for ex: when you want to create the apealing girl type, big boobs and sexy outfit is the standard, but cinema had proved that they could be strong girl character type that don''t fit the standard but fills the need as well (there is a lot of example in the cinema history that standard are broke and the new model work too can we create such phenomenon? one pist is charisma (symbolic meaning) tied with personnality (inner strong trait) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be good be evil but do it WELL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I suppose if you see a cliched element, you have to look at it to see WHY it is used so much. Then you have to think, do I want to use the "underlying idea". If not you have to work out what else you want to do. (ie. Kill all monster vs. don''t have to kill them all)

Or you may like the underlying ideas (ie. discovering subquests by talking to people), but want to change the way that they are implemented (finding jobs on a notice board).

One thing to always remember is that cliches are "cliche" because they are good ideas. That''s how they became cliche. So your point shouldn''t be to "avoid cliches", but to "not seek cliches". Do what you want, and if you do it well, it''ll be good whether it''s cliche or not. If you do it poorly, it''ll suck whether or not it''s cliche.

In fact, cliche can be useful. If you assume your player (viewer/reader for other media) is familiar with the cliche (not necessarily a good assumption, as they have to learn it from somewhere) then a cliche can provide them with a lot of information very quickly letting you get to the meat of the issue.

However, if you do find some part of your game (or whatever) is so cliche you feel naseous, then see what you''re trying to get across and look for other ways to do the same.

well i have put a lot of thought on this issue, here is my conclusion



one things i don''t like with cliche is it seems that you had to avoid it or to embrace it, and i don''t like manichean choice

however i do utilise massively cliche in my work but no one around me contest the originality of my setting (you would have trouble if you want to class them in existing genre)

an obscure film maker, alfred hitchcock, said one day: "it''s better to start with a stereotype than ending with", i thinks it''s the best way to start with

basicaly in story writing there is two major approach, character driven story or plot driven story

plot driven (aristotelicean story) focus on structure and the telling of the plot, the character are pure piece of this structure and for the sake of the plot are a little bit shadowed, the problem come from that we are focus on DOING, the story deal with an external or fixed problem to solve, we still could have great character, but since the problem is more important and drive everythings else, the character had to fit a role from this problem view, that''s why cliche are most effective in this case, the story is CLOSE.
these movie are TEMPORAL, time shape the action (problem to solving)

on the other way you have character driven story (NON aristotelicean story) , they focus on charecter then on BEING, the story flow according to character reaction to external events, the story deal with internal reaction and emotion of a character, the structure is more freeform and the plot could be a little shadowed, you still could have a great plot but the character can just lead the story away from plot, giving the story a wandering feel, character tend to be more complex since they are the focus of these story, solving problem really don''t matter, but you get discovery at the same place because if you had an interesting character event would be original, cliche character would only produce flat event, the story is OPEN.
these story as they focus on STATE of someone (or something), i have label them SPATIALLY driven

plot driven story are prise by hollywood style movie, while character driven is praise by indies or artsy movie

to have both, you must think about the two requirement the same time, having plot mean that character must be concern with the plot and had a role from this plot (predictability) however one could make the character complex that we won''t know how the character would solve the problem (unpredictability then discovery)

that''s way the (old) james bond movie was so good and entertaining, you already know that james bond would solve the problem but the matter was HOW

Hitchcock did also good work tying both plot and character, and it''s not north by northwest or psycho that would show the contrary

however we still have the problem of presenting the information on the character to the audiance, cliche are good for that but we want more isn''t it??

back to the quote of hitchcock >>> learn from cliche basically we could translate it

for example i have seen a movie that the name miss in my memories, where you have a supposely trivial and flat character, but in one scene, that actually saw you the mark of those which had go to concentration camp, you feel empathy and the character was immediatly seen as more complex that what you had previously thougth, making you emphatize with the character

from this example it''s obvious than cliche could be use to introduce one (superficial) aspect of character and set immediate feeling, cliche could be use as AMORCE of complex setting, i call counter exposition the technics that make the shift from the cliche to a complex character to help the audiauce lead to better understanding

basicaly that''s mean that you could just build your character and then find a cliche scene or element to set a first presentation and add layer of complexity through counter exposition during the play when you need to pass some particular information to a given situation, leading a story to unpredictable and more interresting way, since you basically code the understanding of the audiance by the tension between the cliche and the real aspect of a setting, making then your own code than you could reuse to be ''internal cliche'' to code another layer of complexity.

i have seen an japaneese anime called JUNNI KUKKI chronique of the twelve kingdom, in this anim you had a complex story which had more than 25 main character! and the setting ins completly run by it''s own run, they did an awesome work of amorce!!
but basically manga do it a lot, since they had to stay in stereotypical plot BUT make the difference beetween each other, character developpemnt and variation of plot is basically a sport there...


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
be good
be evil
but do it WELL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

quote:

---

Original post by Neoshaman
one things i don''t like with cliche is it seems that you had to avoid it or to embrace it, and i don''t like manichean choice

---

Things aren''t always as they seem, as you seem to point out in the rest of your post (and as Ketchaval''s and my posts point out).

I''m not sure if your post was meant to close the issue, provoke discussion, or had some hidden question. However, I''d like to make a comment relating to this plot/character dichotomy you''ve challenged. Whenever I hear someone say why they really enjoyed a movie or book, they typically talk about why they like such-and-such a character or such-and-such a place in that movie or book. An interesting story may give us a richer view of the characters or make the exposition of the characters more palatable, but it''s not what''ll keep people coming back. I rewatch the Indiana Jones movies because I like Indiana, not because I like being told how he found the holy grail. I rewatch A Knight''s Tale because I like William Thatcher and Chaucer (among others), not because I like being told how William became a knight. I reread The Lord of the Rings because I like the world and all the characters we meet, not because I find how The One Ring was destroyed particularly interesting (or, rather, how it was destroyed is interesting because of the characters who did it). However, if you were to take away the story and simply describe characters, you have no color, no flavor. The story provides an enjoyable means to learn about these characters and the world they live in.

Thus, I don''t see it so much as the either/or you''ve presented, but more as two ingredients making one whole. Having your meat and potatoes (characters/world) is all well and good, but, when you add in even a bit of basic spice (story) like salt and pepper, you enjoy it so much more and have even brought out something in the meat and potatoes that wasn''t there before.

I would just like to add, cliches are not always bad. Look at the movie Kill Bill. The whole movie is built on cliche''s, especialy vol 2, and still the movies are great (imo). My point is: Cliches are not bad if done right.

Scha

I''m not quite sure if I read Neoshaman''s last post right, but the character vs plot driven does seem familiar. Perhaps it''s more a question of whether the plot drives the characters or vice versa.

In many games, the plot is the overiding factor. This is why I feel free in saying that "character developement" in most crpgs ends up meaning stat developement. A lot of games run kind of like movies with interupts you you can run the action scenes. The plot stands, permanent and immutable, just waiting to be exposed. This isn''t neccesarily a bad thing. However, the side effect of this is that if the story is good, I''ll probably "fast forward" through the rest just to get to the next part of the plot. After all, in the long run the side stuff won''t have any lasting impact.

Character driven games seem a bit rarer. The trick here is that the game would have to spring from the character''s motives, which means either have to communicate these motives to the player or have them develope motives for the character. This may still mean an overarcing plot, but it would arise due to the characters personal goals. Note that these types could easily blend, and I''m not sure how strong the differences are. However, I do think your standard "save the world" storylines tend to be plot driven, especially when you throw in the reuctant hero.

Now to get a little more back to topic. You don''t have to just avoid or embrace cliches. Personally, I think it''s more fun to play with them a little. A few ways of doing this pop into mind immediately...

• Use them as openers. The reason something is a cliche is that people have seem it before and can readily recognize it. As such, cliches allow you to feed a lot of assumptions to the player without actually saying all that much. From there you can expand the situation beyond the cliche, making it richer and more interesting, or you could...
  
• Twist the cliche. Get then started using a cliche, then change things around at the last moment. Because cliches are fairly predictable, you know what the players the players expect next. Keep feeding them these assumption until they think they know exactly where the whole things going, then do something different.
  
• Mock the cliche. Poking fun at thing can add an element of humor to your game, if done properly. This normally takes the form of either exaggeration to ridulous levels or by looking like they''re going to follow a cliche, then pointing out the flaws in it. Be careful on this one. Humor is a fickle mistress.
  
• Explain the cliche. This is the counterpoint to mocking a cliche. Try actually explaining why things worked out this way in a logical, story consistant manner. This may sound odd, but I''ve actually got some interesting game ideas from doing this. I''ve done a fair share of poking fun at these things, and it got me thinking of how you could make sense of them. In fact, I''m setting up a play-by-web rpg based on the whole "monster ambush" idea. After all, imagine if monsters really could watch from just outside of reality, waiting for a likely target before phasing in to attack. They''d be a virtually unstoppable force, unless someone found a way to counter this ability...
  

hey the last post give me new idea
seems like video games had interesting way to look at the content

first come external view

we already know firts person
you see with the eye of the avatar


the 3rd view is the view where you control the character

but i think there is a 2nd view specific to game
this deal with game like the sim or rts where you don''t have direct contro of the character but basically give him order indirectly through a cursor, kind of ''YOU DO THIS'', a discussion with the character (he can reply ''i can''t do this'')

but for scenario and writing one must think of internal view first,

the first person view is the subjective view, basically YOU are the character and his personnality is yours, mostly you take a role rather than following a personnality
ex half life''s gordon freeman, YOU are gordon freeman no doubt

the second view is when you are asking to follow a character personnality, you have to role someone
for ex most story would tip the player as ''help someone to acheive something '', you can''t do thing the character wouldn''t do this drive the player to think what would the character would do if i where him, forcing you to role the character

the third view is when the character is acting himself, we refer him as ''he'' and the relation with the player is broke, this could be in interactive sequence when the character do something the player didnot plane

breakin internal and external view give someone more power to enhance the experiance, and help shape the passing of information, external and internal view could be different of course (see narrative RPG as ex)
what do you think of

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
be good
be evil
but do it WELL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I realize this is OT. Perhaps a new thread should have been started for these ideas.

quote:

---

Shimeran
Perhaps it''s more a question of whether the plot drives the characters or vice versa.

---

One problem is that there isn''t any clear way to divide the two. Any part of the plot must involve the characters, so it could be considered character driven. But anything the characters do drives the plot, so it could be considered plot driven. There''s a positive feedback loop between the two. Rich characters provide a rich plot. A rich plot provides richer experiences in which to develop richer characters.

quote:

---

Neoshaman
hey the last post give me new idea
seems like video games had interesting way to look at the content

first come external view

we already know firts person
you see with the eye of the avatar


the 3rd view is the view where you control the character

but i think there is a 2nd view specific to game
this deal with game like the sim or rts where you don''t have direct contro of the character but basically give him order indirectly through a cursor, kind of ''YOU DO THIS'', a discussion with the character (he can reply ''i can''t do this'')

but for scenario and writing one must think of internal view first,

the first person view is the subjective view, basically YOU are the character and his personnality is yours, mostly you take a role rather than following a personnality
ex half life''s gordon freeman, YOU are gordon freeman no doubt

the second view is when you are asking to follow a character personnality, you have to role someone
for ex most story would tip the player as ''help someone to acheive something '', you can''t do thing the character wouldn''t do this drive the player to think what would the character would do if i where him, forcing you to role the character

the third view is when the character is acting himself, we refer him as ''he'' and the relation with the player is broke, this could be in interactive sequence when the character do something the player didnot plane

---

You''re mixing the ideas of "first/third person view" with "first/third person story telling". The two aren''t always the same. Deus Ex was first person, but the story was presented in the third person (or possibly second). Fallout had a third person view, but the story was first person. Final Fantasies are third person view with a third person story.

I''m also not entirely sure what your distinction between "you can''t do anything the character wouldn''t do" and "the character do something the player did not plan", besides a slight difference in the order of events. (i.e. "He didn''t do what I told him to" vs. "He didn''t do what I would have told him to")

quote:

---

breakin internal and external view give someone more power to enhance the experiance, and help shape the passing of information, external and internal view could be different of course (see narrative RPG as ex)
what do you think of

---

It sounds like you''re trying to make the game more immersive by further removing the player from the game character (whether that character is "him" or "me"). This seems counter productive. It could make an interesting game (there were some threads on similar topics), but it wouldn''t really make it more immersive (in the sense of feeling a part of the story). Less so, I''d expect, since you have no direct control over the character and so would feel less attached to him.

well new thread sure will fit

however surely i have been unclear because of fast posting

that i wanted to stress in reality is that game had a specific 2nd person that did not exist in other media , from is interactive capacity, and i wanted to stress it''s importance when one think of game and flow of a game

and i wanted to stress different authored control designer could have among the game, shaping different kind of imersion and experiance for the player...:
-as an actor, the player is himself in the world and only carry a role (for ex being the hero)
-as a coauthor, the player direct the character which half set, then had to understood the personnality of the character to hold situation and let the story unfold, the player is half audiance and actor and little director
-as a director, the player make all decision and a story is create by the choice of the player (ex rts game)

would you say that rts are less immersives, i think this different things, depend of what you want, do you want to experiance a reality, to follow a story or simply play a game (are you a gamist, a simulationist or a narrativist in fact)

however this bring interesting question for the problem of cliche in game and its use
i would bring a new concept for this case, CURSOR character

there is a beleif that interesting movie are made with interesting character, according to my writing lesson, this is half true, it''s really depend of where the interest of the movie is, is it in internal or external activity
for ex, if a movie have a very complex plot, complex character could ruin it because it would interfer with the understading of the plot (problem most game have)
another example is when the world where the story takes place is complex, plot and character are flatten because there is too much information to pass, a very well known example is star wars, and no one would contest the succes of the film

back to CURSOR character concept:
a cursor is the thing that represent someone in a different system, the difference with the avatar is that it actually serve the focus rather than identity
the concept is develop to undertsand game but also work for other media at some extant.
A cursor character is the character which represent the point of view IN the world (basically saying YOU ARE HERE), i may have no other role than this (ex in rpg town, when you are talking to a villager, it''s like you can read their mind than actually talking to them to have information, your look or you familiarity with npc doesnot count but when drama information are pass to the player, it''s funny to observe that there is no switch between the avatar and the cursor and it''s look very natural despite of that showing that the character had a level of semantic abstraction quite good).

this raise an interesting look from cliche in game, basically the player have a character that serve different purpose, making the creation of deep character player controlled very difficult without ruining one or the other fonction or the character, leaving flaw behind us.
the first consequence of this thougth is in static story driven game, where when you play the character is a cursor that trigger event (move the focus to the next scene) and became a full character of the story in cinematics where the player had no control (these shift are best accept when there is an''alert'' like the black cinematic band or fmv)



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
be good
be evil
but do it WELL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>