• 14Aug 10

  Fanboy-ism: Protagonist vs. Protagonist

  I was prowling through the official Dreamfall: The Longest Journey forums as I do from time to time when I came across this thread talking about the protagonists from the series, April in The Longest Journey and Zoe in Dreamfall. People were arguing over who they liked better, and the majority seemed to take the side of April, the "original" or "main" hero of the series. The way this discussion played out was exactly what you would see between any two people discussing any two characters, one group degrading the other to try and show that the other is better. Regardless of whether either side has valid points supporting their opinion I argue that the very premise of the argument is pointless and all together wrong. Here's my reasoning why, which I posted in a separate topic on the TLJ forums.

  *Disclaimer* What lies in wait ahead makes reference to The Longest Journey and Dreamfall as well as The Lord of the Rings, so if you aren't familiar with either you might get confused. Oh, and SPOILERS! *End Disclaimer*

  I'm writing this in response to the stream of negativity towards Zoe in a recent thread. Comparing the two, Zoe and April, is like comparing Frodo and Pippin from The Lord of the Rings, they, and their role in the story are too different to be directly compared in this sort of way. Now, let me explain why.

  When Zoe arrives in Arcadia for the first time, it is completely unexpected and unintentional; in fact it is forced on her after she is assaulted and drugged. Suddenly she awakes in a completely alien place with no explanation and not even a hint at what is going on. Not only that but she has absolutely no clue of what she is doing there, so naturally she would want to figure a way to get out. For all she knows she is dreaming. Now, when Zoe finds her way to the Journey Man and talks to Benrime, she starts to get some information that 'could' help her to accept that it is maybe real, but even then her primary goal is to get the hell back home. It isn't until she meets (or hears about) April that she starts to think that it is real, making the connection to her visions on the screens.

  Even then she could very well be thinking that it is all a dream, being influenced by seeing the visions on the screens. She could believe that it is herself dreaming about meeting April since 'the little girl' mentioned the name to her. Other than meeting April, Zoe has no purpose for being in Arcadia and her main concern is tracking down Reza, who for all she knows at this point might be dead. Her 'purpose' in Arcadia is to save April, but even that is only based on something she saw on a screen. Zoe has no reason at all (at this time) to believe them and even less to try her best to complete it.

  Now, many of you are probably thinking of all the similarities that Zoe might have with April at the beginning of The Longest Journey but the circumstances behind April's actions in the early stages of TLJ are entirely different from those in Dreamfall. In TLJ, April was guided by Cortez before she entered her first shift to Arcadia. All the Shifts before that were merely dreams to April for all she knew and she never dealt with them beyond that. But the first real time April traveled to Arcadia was when Cortez opened the shift for her outside the movie theatre. At this point April had already met with Cortez, who explained to her what her that she had an important destiny and that there was another world existing in Balance with her own. When April first stepped into the shift to Arcadia she knew what she was getting into and what she was supposed to do, even if she didn't full accept that she had an important destiny yet.

  Another very important difference is that April "stepped" through a shift into Arcadia. Cortez gave her a choice, specifically asking her if she would help save the worlds, after explaining what it entailed. Zoe, as I said before, was attacked and drugged, forcefully flung into Arcadia without any information what so ever. This is the important difference between the two circumstances.

  My comparison to Frodo and Pippin in tLotR refers to the two characters journey throughout the story. Many would say that Frodo is clearly the greater character since he carried the ring from the Shire to Mordor to destroy it, while Pippin was a supporting character who didn't have any significant accomplishment to rival Frodo's. This is fairly accurate, but also looking at the two character's role in the overall story it isn't entirely fair to state it as such. Frodo's role in the story, or his destiny, was to bring the Ring to Mordor and destroy it, to save the world. In comparison to that and all the trials Frodo had to overcome Pippin's journey would seem insignificant, however Pippin's role in the story isn't to save the world, his role of a much smaller scale. Through the story we see Pippin overcome his fear and cowardice and develop from an immature, childish character to a more mature adult type character. Pippin's accomplishment is still quite great, throughout the story he rises to the challenges that he is faced with and accomplishes them fully achieving what the story, or his destiny, required of him.

  It is the same sort of idea with April and Zoe in TLJ and Dreamfall respectively. In TLJ April is required to save the world(s). She is told she has to travel all around Arcadia (and Newport) collecting the pieces of the disc and the four jewels and that she has to do what she can to combat the Vanguard. In Dreamfall Zoe's role is to save April, and to find Reza, eventually leading her onto the conspiracy with DreamNet and Wati/Jiva. Zoe isn't meant to save the world, but she does do what the story asks her to. Zoe meets the challenges she is faced with and overcomes them (insofar as the game's much-too-soon ending allows her to). We are told that she saves April (although it remains to be seen exactly how she did this, even though it may merely be that April's crisis of faith is 'resolved' in her death.( I'm of course referring to Ragnar's "Faith Model"). By killing Faith (or rather helping her accept that she is dead/ help her pass on) Zoe regains Faith, frees the wire from the static, resulting in the death of Alvin Peats, and by planting the worm in Dreamcore she helps to .

  It is yet to be seen what Zoe's role in the Storytime is, but presumably since she is the only Dreamer (I suppose excluding Faith) her ultimate purpose lies in the Storytime (this is mentioned or at least alluded to at least two times throughout the game, but I can't remember exactly where).

  Looking at the overall scope of the games April is meant for something more than Zoe, she is the primary protagonist of The Longest Journey (referring to the entire series) Zoe is the protagonist of Dreamfall (and DF Chapters?), and even then her role is partly dependant on April, and her personal role has to do with the Storytime and the story with the Undreaming, while the overall story for TLJ series has to do with the Balance.

  In the end when we look at their respective roles and stories, April doesn't fulfill her role any better than Zoe does. Yes April's role appears to be more important than Zoe's (at least in terms of her role in TLJ compared to Zoe's in Dreamfall) but that doesn't meant that she beats down Zoe in all accounts, Zoe is still and incredible character who achieve a lot throughout her journey, and likely has more to show us in Dreamfall Chapters (whenever it is that Fucom decides to allow Ragnar to bless our depraved souls with more of his magnificent storytelling.)

  Also, I don't see anyone talking ill of Kian, I think it is just a jealous fan boy defence of April in the face of a newer female protagonist. Zoe doesn't replace April, she isn't supposed to be competing with her for the position of the strongest character in the series, she is supposed to add and flesh out the narrative of the series.

  - Matt -

  • Posted Aug 14, 2010 10:43 pm GMT
  • Category: Editorial
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 27Sep 09

  In regards to Abortion.

  Here is a Socratic Dialogue that I wrote for Gr 12 Philosophy. Please take the time to read it long as it may be, it is in a simple format and shouldnt take toomuch time. Then feel free to unleash your many thoughts upon me via comments or the forum here.

  Other: I just found out that I am pregnant.

  Socrates: Oh! That is good news! … But why then do you look so troubled?

  O: I am thinking about getting an abortion.

  S: Why would you even want to consider abortion as an option?

  O: Well, I was planning to go to college next year, and I will not have the time, or the money to raise a child at the same time. Also the father refuses to take on his responsibility, and it would be too much of a burden to raise a child on my own.

  S: Although these may seem to be valid reasons, do they justify getting an abortion?

  O: I don't see the problem. It is not like I am harming anyone; in fact, I am relieving a lot of pressure from my life and making it better by allowing myself to get an education.

  S: You do know what an abortion is, right?

  O: Yes, of course. It is the termination of an unwanted pregnancy.

  S: By that definition you mean that it is up to the parents desire to determine whether or not a child is worthy of being born?

  O: Yes, I mean that it's the parent's choice, but there is no harm being done to any child in an abortion.

  S: But did you not say that an abortion was the termination of a pregnancy?

  O: Yes, I did.

  S: Well, what does it mean to be pregnant?

  O: It is to have a child developing in the womb.

  S: By that definition is abortion not the termination of a developing child?

  O: There is a difference between a developing child and a child that has been born. Most abortions take place early on in the pregnancy, during the first trimester when the fetus cant exist outside of the mother. At this point it is only a clump of cells, and thus not at all a human being.

  S: What is the distinct difference between the fetus during the first trimester, and the child at birth?

  O: The difference is that the fetus is not yet a person. It has not yet developed into a human; it is unable to live independent of the mother and does not have the characteristics that can define it as human.

  S: What characteristics is it lacking that it cannot be considered to be a human?

  O: It cannot interact with its environment; it cannot live independent of its mother and has not developed into a human yet.

  S: Doesn't mothers sometimes feel her baby move inside her? And don't ultrasounds show them moving in the womb?

  O: Well, yes that is true. The baby does move in the womb.

  S: Then is that not the baby interacting with its environment?

  O: Yes, I suppose that it is interacting within the limits of its environment.

  S: And you say that it cannot survive without its mother?

  O: Right. It can't survive apart from its mother.

  S: Isn't that similar to young children, who rely on their parents to feed and protect them?

  O: Yes, they can't do this on their own; they need their parents to do this for them.

  S: And I thought that the fetus has the same genetic code of a human.

  O: I think that it does.

  S: Then the fetus is not lacking any characteristics that define it as human?

  O: The fetus cannot reason.

  S: But isn't the age of reason around seven years old?

  O: Yes.

  S: Then all children under the age of seven do not have the characteristics to qualify them as human?

  O: Well, no. Children younger than seven are still human. But the fetus is still not fully a human. A young child may need help to survive from it's parents, but is not dependant upon them, it has the ability to do it on its own.

  S: What do you mean that it is still not "fully human"?

  O: The fetus is still developing and is in a state of becoming a human. At best we can claim that it is potentially a human.

  S: So you are saying it is not actually human, but potentially human?

  O: Yes, exactly.

  S: But doesn't the fetus 'actually' exist?

  O: Yes, it does.

  S: So what is the 'actualized fetus' in a state of becoming?

  O: It is becoming a human.

  S: Does it then have the potential to 'become' anything other than a human?

  O: Of course it doesn't!

  S: Is it not true that something cannot become something other than what its substance will allow?

  O: Yes, a piece of wood cannot become something other than what can be made out of wood. It cannot become a steel chair, but it can become a wooden chair.

  S: Doesn't this principal also apply to the human fetus?

  O: I would have to say that it does. The human fetus cannot become anything other than a human.

  S: So, if the human fetus is actualized, and it is becoming a human and cannot become anything other than a human, is it not actually a human?

  O: I would say that it is actually a 'human fetus', but it is still in a state of becoming thus it is not yet fully human.

  S: But are not all "full humans" also in a state of becoming, or a state of change?

  O: No, because they are already fully human.

  S: I mean, are they becoming in the sense that a child becomes a teenager, who then proceeds to become an adult and so on?

  O: Well then it is true that humans are always becoming, a medical student is becoming a doctor.

  S: So then you mean that, in the same sense, a human fetus is becoming a human infant, as a human child is becoming a human teenager?

  O: Yes, they follow the same logic.

  S: Then is a human fetus actually human, and not merely potentially human?

  O: Yes, I have to agree that it is. However the human fetus is still part of the mother's body, because it is in her womb. And if it is part of the mother than it is the mothers choice whether or not she will have an abortion. After all, the mother has the right to control her own body.

  S: But you just concluded that it is a fully actualized human being, and if that were so then would it not necessarily follow that the mother is two fully actualized humans?

  O: No, I just mean that the developing fetus is part of the mother, but not that the mother is two people.

  S: If the fetus is part of the mother then wouldn't everything that is part of it, also be part of the mother? Its arms, its legs etc.

  O: That would have to mean that what is part of the fetus is also part of the mother yes.

  S: So is the fetus an individual being, or a part of the mother, like an organ?

  O: It would have to be an individual being, or else its feet would also be its mother's feet. The mother cannot be two people at once.

  S: So then if the human fetus is an individual human, and not part of the mother, then does she still have control over whether or not it should be aborted?

  O: The decision is still the mother's responsibility.

  S: But the act includes both the mother and the unborn child, so doesn't it affect both of them and not only the mother?

  O: Yes, the choice includes both of them.

  S: How can you then ask a mother to take responsibility for their child's life and decide if they live or die?

  O: That is true, not mother would want to put their own child's life at risk and decide their fate. But in a case where the mother's life is at risk, and by aborting the child her life can be saved.

  S: Even in that scenario there are still two lives involved. Who then is to say that the mother's life is more important then the child's?

  O: The mother has contributed more to society. She can provide for herself and others and is thus more useful.

  S: So is one to be judged based on how useful they are? Aren't the elderly less useful to society than a young worker?

  O: It is true that those who work are more useful to society and can contribute through things like taxes. But also the elderly have worked in the past and were useful to society.

  S: But you have tried to establish a monetary value for a human life. Thus are children less valuable to society because they do not contribute to society in this way?

  O: Hmm, I see what you are saying, and since a child will potentially contribute to society and a fetus is potentially a child they cannot be said to be worthless. Otherwise a child would have to be considered worthless as well.

  S: So is a mother's life more valuable, and more worthy of saving than an unborn child?

  O: No, a mother's life is not more valuable than the unborn child's.

  S: So what ought a doctor do in this case?

  O: I would say that the doctor ought to try and save both, since neither can be considered more important. But there is still a more serious case where abortion is an acceptable solution.

  S: What could possibly make abortion acceptable?

  O: If the woman was raped, she had not choice in the matter, and since she did not choose to become pregnant, she should not have to bear the responsibility of raising the child.

  S: I see, so in this scenario, who holds the responsibility?

  O: The person who raped thee woman is responsible for getting her pregnant, and casing any psychological and emotional trauma.

  S: Isn't the one responsible for the crime the one who ought to be punished for it?

  O: Yes that is how it ought to be.

  S: Can you remind me again what an abortion is?

  O: The termination of a fetus.

  S: And the fetus is actually a human child?

  O: Yes.

  S: But then in an abortion isn't it the unborn child who is being punished for the crime and not the one who committed it?

  O: Oh, I see what you mean. It is not just at all to punish the unborn child when he was not involved at all in the crime. To punish the child for the crime would be like punishing the mother for it, for she is not responsible for the crime either.

  S: So then abortion is not an acceptable solution to rape?

  O: Right, it would be totally unjust to do so.

  S: So what should the mother do rather than get an abortion?

  O: I guess putting the child up for adoption is always an option.

  S: So, the fetus is in fact an unborn human child, and abortion is morally wrong in all situations, even the most serious ones?

  O: Yes, the fetus is actually an unborn child, and an abortion is thus the killing of a human child, so it is wrong in all situations.

  • Posted Sep 27, 2009 7:27 pm GMT
  • Category: Other
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 6Feb 09

  Killzone 2: The PS3's White Knight, or Just Another FPS?

  I'm writing this in response to Jsmoke03's blog post "Will killzone 2 reverse the ps3's fortune?" I didn't want to leave it in a comment, because it is quite long. If you haven't read his blog, you may want to prior to mine, but that is up to you.

  So the initial question is will Killzone 2 be the Play Station 3's savior in 2009, or will it have no impact at all?

  Well it seems that many of the big hit, main attractions for the Xbox 360 are its FPS games, like Halo and Gears, and the Play Station 3 doesn't really have any big, successful 'exclusive' online shooters (or any exclusives in general for that matter). I think that Killzone 2 is a game that will appeal to the general 360 fan, and might grasp their curiosity. In that respect it has great potential to draw some "fence sitters", and 360 owners over to buy a PS3, saving it from the bowels of console hell... But I wouldn't get my hopes up.
  
  I don't know if we should go as far as to say that Killzone 2 can save Sony from many bad mistakes. At least not single handedly. I think it is quite clear that 2009 will be a phenomenal year for the PS3, and maybe that this year we might see the PS3 give its competitors a run for their money... or at least a second look at it. With games Uncharted 2, Heavy Rain, God of War III, Infamous, DC Universe Online and Killzone 2 scheduled for release in 2009 (or 2010 for some) the PS3's line up is boasting some of the most anticipated, and "destined for greatness" of any console titles coming out this year.

  We all know about the mistakes Sony made early in the console's release: 3 to 4 different builds each with different functionality (20gb, 40gb, 60gb, 80gb), then removing two of them (20gb and 60gb), replacing the 80gb with another 80gb with different backwards compatibility [I don't know if that was exactly the case?] now there is a 120gb? In addition only the 80gb has backwards compatibility, but does not support every game. Seriously Sony, what were you thinking!? On top of all that nonsensical confusion the PS3 is price much too high, an astounding $499. But hey, people bought them. I did. So what does Sony, or the Play Station 3, have to worry about?

  That should be immediately obvious when you compare it to its adversaries the Xbox 360 and the Nintendo Wii, who's sales continue to over shadow the puny PS3.

  The question becomes, will thePS3's line up of superb games out weigh its hefty price? That is hard to determine, but my opinion is that the PS3's sales will increase this year, (but a price cut never hurts). Those few people out there who have yet to choose a 'nextgen' console have plenty of good reasons to buy a PS3, and those who already own a Wii and 360 have the same reasons to keep their lonely consoles company with a PS3.

  And remember, if nothing else appeals to you about the PS3 (particularly the 80gb), it can double as a heater for your room during the bitter cold winter months. Seriously, I leave that thing running for a couple hours and I'm turning down the heat, or opening a window.

  Is $499 really all that bad when you're getting a gaming console, a BluRay player, digital media storage, web browser (and all that crap), and a personal heater all bundled into one? Hmmm… I don't think so. (Well, yes I do, but it's still great… Well MGS4 is… And its 09 releases have to be).

  • Posted Feb 6, 2009 10:23 pm GMT
  • Category: Editorial
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg

See Previous Blog Posts »