Wolfire Games Forums

You know, there's this wierd thing called the 'common enemy'. Any ever heard the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"?

Allies don't need to like each other. They don't even have to trust each other. All they need to do is kill the people who try to kill them.

A pragmatist is someone who will join with someone they wouldn't normally want anything to do with for the sake of not getting their ass killed. So, Turner and the wolf, being pragmatists, could fight alongside each other, against the wolves and the wolves' agents (rabbits who don't want to be eaten), since those are enemies they share. However, if Turner had enemies that the wolf didn't (and vice-versa), then he would refuse to fight against them. Simple as that.

You use far too much logic to be a member of this forum.
A very well made-out point.
I think that would be the kind of relationship I would prefer.
I wouldn't care much for the Wolfie-And-Turner-Become-Teh-Bestest-Friends-Lolz method. That would seem very fake and tacked-on. If they were allies, I'd want them to be at each other's necks the whole time. =)

Renegade_Turner wrote:

invertin wrote:Who ever said the final fight had to be between the two? And who ever said one had to kill the other?

Well you said that you didn't want them to become allies.
But you don't want them to become enemies either.

So then, what exactly would be the point of having a game where you play two seperate characters who have nothing to do with each other?

They are not on the same side.

One is working with wolves, one is working for rabbits.

LUGARU IS A BIG ISLAND THOUGH

They don't ever have to meet, that's what I was talking about.

Just because there is one story doesn't mean they have to physically/verbally interact.

Look at it this way- some kind of huge bad event is happening, it effects wolves AND rabbits, wolves and rabbits have war over said event, whatever it is, Turner and wolfie never actually meet during said war, however, the wolf is part of a secret infiltration thingy or something, and using his sabotagery, he affects the whole rabbit army or visa-versa.

There. A simple story where Turner and Wolfie do not meet but still interact in some sort of way.

That sounds largely uninteresting. I would prefer it if they met and interacted. Otherwise, what would be the point?

Alright, whatever.

I just don't want a wolf and a rabbit working together. They don't work together.

Apart from in Lone Wolf, but then they all turned out to be evil, didn't they?

I like movies where the two main protagonists hate each other but still need to work together. You can have more fun with allies who are at each other's throats.

You never know when something like that will work or it won't just by talking about it. Maybe Turner should work with a wolf, maybe they should never work together. It all matters about how the story plays out and that you actually want to be playing as these two characters. That's why I wouldn't mind just sticking to one character's story, and only playing as a wolf in specific challenge levels and debug mode. Because maybe it will be really cool to play as a wolf, or maybe it won't. Creating two separate characters with two different goals and having them both be likable at the same time is really hard to do. It's definitely more than whether they're at each other's throats or not.

Renegade_Turner wrote:

invertin wrote:Who ever said the final fight had to be between the two? And who ever said one had to kill the other?

Well you said that you didn't want them to become allies.
But you don't want them to become enemies either.

So then, what exactly would be the point of having a game where you play two seperate characters who have nothing to do with each other?

My one problem with this statement;

Allies =/= Friends.

They don't have to be ZOMG YAOI IN LOVE to be watching eachother's backs in the middle of a battle in which they have a common enemy.

Makrond wrote:You know, there's this wierd thing called the 'common enemy'. Any ever heard the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"?

Allies don't need to like each other. They don't even have to trust each other. All they need to do is kill the people who try to kill them.

A pragmatist is someone who will join with someone they wouldn't normally want anything to do with for the sake of not getting their ass killed. So, Turner and the wolf, being pragmatists, could fight alongside each other, against the wolves and the wolves' agents (rabbits who don't want to be eaten), since those are enemies they share. However, if Turner had enemies that the wolf didn't (and vice-versa), then he would refuse to fight against them. Simple as that.

This is sort of what I was getting at.

Thank you, Mak.

Zantalos wrote:Creating two separate characters with two different goals and having them both be likable at the same time is really hard to do. It's definitely more than whether they're at each other's throats or not.

This is obvious, but the point you're making is more about skill at character design, not about ways to go about the story. We're talking about how they might interact, not what sort of characters they're going to be. Obviously they have to be well-made characters to be likable..

Miyamoto Usagi wrote:

Renegade_Turner wrote:

invertin wrote:Who ever said the final fight had to be between the two? And who ever said one had to kill the other?

Well you said that you didn't want them to become allies.
But you don't want them to become enemies either.

So then, what exactly would be the point of having a game where you play two seperate characters who have nothing to do with each other?

My one problem with this statement;

Allies =/= Friends.

They don't have to be ZOMG YAOI IN LOVE to be watching eachother's backs in the middle of a battle in which they have a common enemy.

I never once said otherwise...it's Invertin you should be telling this to. He's the one who doesn't understand the concept of working with someone you hate for a common goal.

Dumbed-down example:
Say you get a joint assignment with someone in class to complete as part of your overall grade. You hate the person you get as a partner and they hate you. However, you both agree to work together for the duration that it takes for the purposes of the assignment and set aside your differences because not doing that would be RETARDED.

Understand?

School and life are different. Unless god tells them both (meaning the wolf and the rabbit) to work together, they'll need a better reason than someone telling them what to do.

Hm.. For good "ateachothersthroats" action, make the characters opposites, not complete, but-

Turner- A fighter, lonely, serious, experienced.

Wolf- A fighter (wolves have to be), playful, rash, young.

And that way, because the wolf isn't fully grown, we have a reason to make him as weak as rabbits.

There's an old saying in theater that goes, "If you bring a gun on stage, you're going to have to fire it." That's essentially what will happen here; if you bring a wolf and a rabbit together, one of them is going to have to die (or maybe they'll just fight). In my opinion, we should just keep playing as Turner.

For example, I HATED the dual storylines in Halo 2. They took a menacing alien race, the Elites, and tried to turn them into sympathetic characters. From a storytelling standpoint, this was a disaster.

Renegade_Turner wrote:

Zantalos wrote:Creating two separate characters with two different goals and having them both be likable at the same time is really hard to do. It's definitely more than whether they're at each other's throats or not.

This is obvious, but the point you're making is more about skill at character design, not about ways to go about the story. We're talking about how they might interact, not what sort of characters they're going to be. Obviously they have to be well-made characters to be likable..

It doesn't matter whether you have them hate each other or not if they are truly likable characters.

There is no such thing as a cookie cutter script where you take two characters with such a background that you have to have them hate each other or else it won't work. Writers do not go half way into writing the screenplay for Shanghai Nights and then go, "well shit, Jackie Chan would never work together with Owen Wilson, he's an imperial guard of China and Roy O'Bannon is a dirty outlaw, they shouldn't be helping each other it doesn't make any sense!" That movie was a hit, it was hilarious and had impressive fights. You can have a rabbit and wolf interact however you want, but there is no right or wrong answer.

Hey, that's funny... I was thinking about using Shanghai Nights as an example. Eh.

Anti-hero. Someone whom is sympathised with, yet who would normally be reviled. Example: Ned Kelly. Notorious outlaw, killed many police. Robbed banks. National hero. Go figure.

invertin wrote:School and life are different. Unless god tells them both (meaning the wolf and the rabbit) to work together, they'll need a better reason than someone telling them what to do.

Ummm...you completely missed the point I was trying to make. I was talking about the concept of working with someone you dislike for a common goal. It is not unrealistic. It happens.

Ever hear about the British and German soldiers in the World War sitting on either side of the trenches who made pacts to avoid killing each other? These weren't known at the time, but soldiers from that time have spoken of it, secret pacts they made in their own trenches so that they don't have to slaughter other people who are just being told what to do anyway.

There's an instance of two enemies working for a common goal : staying alive. Some people coexist because they have to.

Moving on from that brief tangent...