Was Bastila really the main character?

[Darque]

I keep seeing people state this.... but I'm not convinced.

 

She was important to the story, yes.

She had a pivitol role, yes.

 

But was she really the "main" character in KotOR?

 

Did she outshine the main character played by the player?

 

While it's true the story went around her in part... didn't it really revolve around Revan... since it seems EVERYTHING in KotOR was somehow influenced by Revan in his/her first two forms (you being the third)

 

"If" she was... how did it really affect the story negatively or your gaming experience... and more importantly would a similar "gimmick" used in KotOR 2 damage it's fun factor?

[Iolo]

The main character was Revan. It just didn't become apparent until later. I don't see why an RPG should revolve around the main character as being so central to the story anyway. That's one flaw I think in BioWare's games.

[Darque]

So would you say you would prefer a more Final fantasy-ish style.. where the party is the focus storywise? (trying to get an example)

[Iolo]

I would prefer more an Icewind Dale or Temple of Elemental Evil or even Fallout 1 story where there is a bad guy and you are going to stop it but the storyline isn't really connected to you. You may have impact through your actions but no background or choices are forced upon you.

[Darque]

oh! ok I understand

 

Yeah, I could see that. It definately adds to it's non-linearity factor.

[kefka]

Revan is the main character, but I did think Bastila was too important - she drove the story much of the time. All the key points in the game revolve around her in some way, with your choice and course of action in response to Bastila's.

 

The only time that really bothered me was in the temple. It didn't matter how you'd played the game up that point - the main character made a simple choice given to you by Bastila that instantly changed the outcome. You merely followed her lead.

 

Yes, you become master again to her apprentice, but if you were driving the story Revan could have turned fully to the dark-side at any point. Why do you need Bastila for that?

[Darque]

Yeah, I guess I can see where you're coming from.

 

It's kind of a lack of control thing, you're more reacting to what's thrown at you, rather than driving down the path.

[The Situationist]

Is it just me, or do you make a lot of threads? <_<

[Darque]

Is this somehow a problem? B)

[deganawida]

I also felt that Revan was the main character of the story. All of the choices, all of the problems experienced, were because of Revan. The only reason for Bastilla's importance was her connection to Revan (her Battle Meditation is sited as a reason in-game, but that only led to the Bastilla-Revan confrontation). As for the Temple scene, the reason that played out the way that it did is that Bastilla got some of Revan's "taint" through the bond (Jolee mentions this), and in order to fully go dark side, you needed her. Basically, Bastilla/Revan were 1 3/4 characters, rather than 2 separate characters, and each needed the other to make a choice fully one way or the other. Also, you can go through most of the game without using Bastilla (though why anyone would want to deprive themselves of Jennifer Hale's voice is beyond me), and her abscence made no real difference in how the story played out.

[Gromnir]

oh! ok I understand

 

Yeah, I could see that. It definately adds to it's non-linearity factor.

the absence of a clearly defined protagonist does not necessarily make a game any less linear. iwd was already noted as an example. very linear.

 

is much easier to write characters you know than ones you can only guess

[Drakron]

IWD series never make the party being anything but a buch of adventurers.

 

Unless they pulled a deus ex machina it would be hard to any NPC to "steal the show" in that game and Bastila does have some deus ex machina moments in SWKotOR.

[Gromnir]

IWD series never make the party being anything but a buch of adventurers.

 

Unless they pulled a deus ex machina it would be hard to any NPC to "steal the show" in that game and Bastila does have some deus ex machina moments in SWKotOR.

the npcs were "the show" in iwd. that is the whole point.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[~Di]

My only problem with Bastilia was that she was too predictable and too Aribethian.

[Drakron]

?

 

I said deus ex machina and you know what that means and never in IWD were NPCs comming out of the blue and solve things for the party, except with the seal thing on the Tempus temple that is a example of deus ex machina (NPC shows up and solves the portal problem).

[Gromnir]

you said "Unless they pulled a deus ex machina it would be hard to any NPC to "steal the show" in that game," correct?

 

do you even read your own posts? you distinguished from deus ex machina... though you does shoot self in foot by noting possibly the biggest example of deus ex machina in an ie game... your exception pretty much invalidates your generalization.

 

again, the npcs WERE the show in iwd. it was their stories we followed. the protagonist/party was involved in pivotal events, but the npcs was the pivotal characters. it was their show, and the protagonist/party was largely incidental.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Logan]

The only time that really bothered me was in the temple. It didn't matter how you'd played the game up that point - the main character made a simple choice given to you by Bastila that instantly changed the outcome. You merely followed her lead.

 

Yes, you become master again to her apprentice, but if you were driving the story Revan could have turned fully to the dark-side at any point. Why do you need Bastila for that?

I was pretty dissapointed when I played my second game as a nuetral char that would make a big swing to the Dark Side once I "discovered" I was actually Revan.

I wanted to go full dark lord mode right there on the Leviathin -or at least back at the Ebon Hawk, but that had to wait until the Bastila confrontation at the Temple.

 

I think Bio should have made the leviathin confrontation another possible dark side swing point that would greatly influence subsequent conversations should you choose Dark. For example, you should be able to to make the Wookie kill Mission right then instead of later. (I thought this was the best dark side roleplaying opportunity in the whole game)

 

Logan

[Drakron]

?

 

You make no sense, NPCs had their own personality and goals in the game but besides pointing into the right direction and the "quest" roles some had ...

 

Hardly "being the story"... part of it yes but then again how could they not be?

[Gromnir]

describe the protagonist.

 

...

 

bitter and cold kresselack.

 

foolish larrel.

 

the eternal conflict of yuxonemi and belhifet.

 

everard's test of faith.

 

whatever heroism and tragedy you finds in the iwd story, it comes from the npcs.

 

in ps:t and kotor we know the protagonist. the protagonist has a history and there is folks who recognize your character. the story of kotor and ps:t is the story of the protagonist... which is a tough trick considering that almost every player is gonna play the game a little different.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Drakron]

?

 

Being reading a lot in NPCs have you not ...

 

Again they dont "steal the show", having some basic personality does not make then steal the show.

 

Perhaps any game that does not have bland NPCs with a blank personaly is whay you call a game were NPCs dont steal the show ...

 

Everard (if that is the Tempus cleric) is the only that does something that solves a problem for the party (the portal), he is the only god ex machina and does steal the show at that point.

[Gromnir]

sorry chum, but the only stories being told in iwd is npc stories... the protagonist advances the story while remaining incidental.

 

describe the protagonist.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[DemonKing]

sorry chum, but the only stories being told in iwd is npc stories... the protagonist advances the story while remaining incidental.

While I agree that the beauty of IWD was the rich NPCs, with their motivations and backstories, I would hardly call the PC's actions "incidental". The intervention of the PCs is necessary to achieve the end result - and they do have to make moral choices along the way (for example - do I kill Maraketh or let him live even though he's clearly no good for Ginafae, do I kill the mad Paladin in TOL or leave him to his misery etc).

 

Of course there is no clear single "protagonist" in a party-based game, but I think to suggest that Icewind Dale should have been sub-titled "Baelephet" is a bit far- fetched (although playing him would have made an interesting game!).

[Pope]

I actually liked how most of KotOR's NPC's tied in with the story. That way they at least have a decent reason to follow you, as opposed to BG (and even then it took until BG2 for Imoen, and ToB for Sarevok).

[Gromnir]

"The intervention of the PCs is necessary to achieve the end result - and they do have to make moral choices along the way."

 

never denied that... but your character is never defined, and is still largely incidental to story. how does your character give us a look at the human condition? what themes is explored with your character? describe your character and his story.

 

oh, and by the way, you actions is not really necessary to achieve no end result... at least not in any meaningful way. this goes back to showing us just how linear iwd was, 'cause you can choose whatever responses you want and they won't make no difference in iwd, will they? main plot points occur regardless of how you respond... you is simply a witness to what is occurring in game, and you know it.

 

 

btw, bg is a party-based game, and so is kotor. you has a party in both those games, and in kotor you is even forced to take along certain characters for a time. not change fact that there is also a clearly identifiable protagonist. was Gorion's Ward or Revan or TNO who we was following and discovering. they sure as heck was party-based games though.

 

"but I think to suggest that Icewind Dale should have been sub-titled "Baelephet" is a bit far- fetched (although playing him would have made an interesting game!)."

 

we guess you didn't like the title, "Moby ****?" heck, the Dragon in MD was far less involved in development of story than was belhifet in iwd.... though what that would have to do with playing the dragon/whale in a game is seeming like kinda an unrelated issue. regardless, the villain/antagonist is often the title character in stories.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Drakron]

Of course the characters are left in a blank state, they are for the players to fill in.

 

Fallout anyone?

 

If they started to "define" the party it would be taking that away from the player, with would be bad.

 

I dislike when they start to push my characters down in some direction I dont like unless I am playing a pre generated character (like TNO in PS:T, Squall in FF VIII or Darc in Arc the Lad) were I will try to get into that character.

 

I like both systems, the "blank" character that I can create and the "generated" character that I can get into knowing but something in the middle usually does not work but I neither have the freedom to make a character or a fully developed character ... I have a half baked one (SWKotOR).