Actually, not ALL the time. In the beginning, the whole team was like, "Oh hey! What's up?" And then the people in the city got super paranoid and started shooting at him. NOW, what Walker SHOULD have done at that point was to call in and say they found the guys and just went home after that, but as we all know, they didn't.Gekidami said:Spec Ops: The Line, Walker's team turn out to be the aggressors, he always started combat first
Nope. Stubbs is the protagonist of that game. If the game ended with the Chief of Police blowing his head off and going full Ash Williams on your zombie horde, it would have counted.Silentpony said:Does Stubbs the Zombie count? 'cause you're technically eating innocent people's brains and murdering hundreds of people with your zombie horde.
And lets not forget break-dancing against the chief of police. Then eating his brains.
Well, that's an opinion you have that differs from mine and you'll have to let it differ.crimson5pheonix said:Snip
Same goes for you. Still just splitting hairs to me, and that's all it's gonna be.Mangod said:Snip
I don't know that a definition [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antagonist] can be an opinion.FalloutJack said:Well, that's an opinion you have that differs from mine and you'll have to let it differ.crimson5pheonix said:Snip
Same goes for you. Still just splitting hairs to me, and that's all it's gonna be.Mangod said:Snip
I've already explained that there are exceptions and that you don't agree, but your not agreeing is an opinion.crimson5pheonix said:I don't know that a definition [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antagonist] can be an opinion.FalloutJack said:Well, that's an opinion you have that differs from mine and you'll have to let it differ.crimson5pheonix said:Snip
Same goes for you. Still just splitting hairs to me, and that's all it's gonna be.Mangod said:Snip
Actually you haven't explained that, you haven't even given an example of an exception.FalloutJack said:I've already explained that there are exceptions and that you don't agree, but your not agreeing is an opinion.crimson5pheonix said:I don't know that a definition [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antagonist] can be an opinion.FalloutJack said:Well, that's an opinion you have that differs from mine and you'll have to let it differ.crimson5pheonix said:Snip
Same goes for you. Still just splitting hairs to me, and that's all it's gonna be.Mangod said:Snip
This entire argument has been over my inclusion of Destroy All Humans, and explaining why. I've done plenty. The problem is that you do not like what I've said, and that I don't find your counter compelling. Now, if you have some other angle to pursue, like character motivation or plot development, that's fine. But if your disagreement has become 'You didn't explain' when this argument has been nothing but explanation, I must ask you to stop.crimson5pheonix said:Actually you haven't explained that, you haven't even given an example of an exception.FalloutJack said:I've already explained that there are exceptions and that you don't agree, but your not agreeing is an opinion.crimson5pheonix said:I don't know that a definition [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antagonist] can be an opinion.FalloutJack said:Well, that's an opinion you have that differs from mine and you'll have to let it differ.crimson5pheonix said:Snip
Same goes for you. Still just splitting hairs to me, and that's all it's gonna be.Mangod said:Snip
Then we're back at "a definition is not an opinion". The antagonist is not defined as who is morally right or who struck first, the antagonist is defined as the person/force that opposes the protagonist and the protagonist is defined as the main character of the story. Games make it easy because we control the protagonist by definition. It doesn't matter that the humans are morally right, they're the antagonists because they're trying to stop the protagonist.FalloutJack said:This entire argument has been over my inclusion of Destroy All Humans, and explaining why. I've done plenty. The problem is that you do not like what I've said, and that I don't find your counter compelling. Now, if you have some other angle to pursue, like character motivation or plot development, that's fine. But if your disagreement has become 'You didn't explain' when this argument has been nothing but explanation, I must ask you to stop.crimson5pheonix said:Actually you haven't explained that, you haven't even given an example of an exception.FalloutJack said:I've already explained that there are exceptions and that you don't agree, but your not agreeing is an opinion.crimson5pheonix said:I don't know that a definition [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antagonist] can be an opinion.FalloutJack said:Well, that's an opinion you have that differs from mine and you'll have to let it differ.crimson5pheonix said:Snip
Same goes for you. Still just splitting hairs to me, and that's all it's gonna be.Mangod said:Snip
No, you're there. I'm past that. You're going around in circles. I'm just not budging because of your opinion, which is clearly that exceptions don't exist, which is not true, and you don't want to accept my example of one because...I have no idea. Just seems like point of view to me, in which case: Impasse.crimson5pheonix said:Snip
Because it's not an impasse. Where you're stuck is that protagonist=hero antagonist=villain and that's not true. Crypto in Destroy All Humans may be the villain, but that just means he's a villain protagonist [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VillainProtagonist]. Since he's not caught by the humans iirc, he's not defeated, thus the antagonists (the humans) do not win.FalloutJack said:No, you're there. I'm past that. You're going around in circles. I'm just not budging because of your opinion, which is clearly that exceptions don't exist, which is not true, and you don't want to accept my example of one because...I have no idea. Just seems like point of view to me, in which case: Impasse.crimson5pheonix said:Snip
Protagonist = The main character in any story, such as a literary work or drama. [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/protagonist]FalloutJack said:No, you're there. I'm past that. You're going around in circles. I'm just not budging because of your opinion, which is clearly that exceptions don't exist, which is not true, and you don't want to accept my example of one because...I have no idea. Just seems like point of view to me, in which case: Impasse.crimson5pheonix said:Snip
crimson5pheonix said:Snip
No, you two are just not listening and I am not convinced by your arguments. You deny that hybrid characters and writing as such exists, which is wrong as I've explained, and that IS an impasse, by definition. [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impasse] So, either you accept the defined term of impasse and that we cannot reach a conclusion because of our differing points of view OR you accept that exceptions exist to the rule and thus you CAN continue discussion...but then you'd have to accept my argument.Mangod said:Snap
What argument? That Antagonist and Main Character cannot be used interchangeably? "Hybrid character" is supposed to mean what, exactly? That someone can be the Protagonist and the Villain at the same time? Yes, we've both agreed, that's what the term villain protagonist is for.FalloutJack said:crimson5pheonix said:SnipNo, you two are just not listening and I am not convinced by your arguments. You deny that hybrid characters and writing as such exists, which is wrong as I've explained, and that IS an impasse, by definition. [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impasse] So, either you accept the defined term of impasse and that we cannot reach a conclusion because of our differing points of view OR you accept that exceptions exist to the rule and thus you CAN continue discussion...but then you'd have to accept my argument.Mangod said:Snap
It's only a discussion insofar as you not accepting literary definitions based on nothing at all. It's not an opinion, Crypto isn't the antagonist. Full stop. The story isn't an example of the antagonist winning. Full stop. By no literary definition does your argument stand. However it is nice how you ignore definitions until you think it suits you to use them.FalloutJack said:crimson5pheonix said:SnipNo, you two are just not listening and I am not convinced by your arguments. You deny that hybrid characters and writing as such exists, which is wrong as I've explained, and that IS an impasse, by definition. [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impasse] So, either you accept the defined term of impasse and that we cannot reach a conclusion because of our differing points of view OR you accept that exceptions exist to the rule and thus you CAN continue discussion...but then you'd have to accept my argument.Mangod said:Snap
Convinced of what? That the literal definition of the term does not agree with what you claim you think is? Because it's fairly easy to check.FalloutJack said:No, you two are just not listening and I am not convinced by your arguments.
Do you mean "morally hybrid" (which is exceptionally odd thing to say)? Because, if so - incorrect. It's been repeatedly pointed out that it does exist and protagonist/antagonist already solve the ambiguity by not addressing morality.FalloutJack said:You deny that hybrid characters and writing as such exists
Erm, it's pretty much you plugging your ears and going "I'M NOT LISTENING TO YOU! I'M NOT LISTENING TO YOU! LA-LA-LA-LA" which is where the difference comes from, though. Because you refuse to go by the mainstream and only definition available for the words "protagonist" and "antagonist".FalloutJack said:our differing points of view
What exceptions? Which rule? Do you also disagree with how the term, say, "consonant" is used? What about the term "prime number" - are those also just a matter of personal interpretation?FalloutJack said:you accept that exceptions exist to the rule
No. Let me make it perfectly clear: I shall not accept your argument that "the actual definition of the words 'antagonist' and 'protagonist' is merely a matter of opinion". You have not managed to produce anything but "it's an opinion" in defence of that. Can you prove there does not exist a formal statement of meaning for those words? Because it doesn't, that means they only have personal interpretation. Yes, by definition.FalloutJack said:but then you'd have to accept my argument.
Mangod said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Look, I didn't want to argue with you guys, but apparently I was actually on the right track here, as stated by the OP. Can we just break even here? I didn't mean to fire you all up on this.DoPo said:
Sorry about that.Tanis said:Yay?