A lot of the pomo theorists and writers astonished me with the amount of rubbish they could talk.
I'm getting that feeling
right now.
Dialog? Who said they have dialogue? It's a monologue of the Little Prince. more than it's a dialogue, so I'm sorry, your point is no point. You can't really argue against the point if you've never read the book, though, that's just weird.
Hmmm...
<replays>
NN : Fallout's narrative and story is so weak EXACTLY because the characters aren't tied strongly to the plot
Ratty : Nuh-uh! Little prince is proof this is rubbish!
NN : Never read it, but wiki says its a dialog, doesn't that mean the characters pretty much are the plot?
Brother None : Hah! Fool, it's a monologue, your point is stupid.
Ummmm...wouldn't a book thats a monologue be pretty much the purest example of a story woven around a character possible? I can't think of a better one. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "interaction", although a monologue is kinda the character interacting with the reader. Sorta. Still, the character makes that story.
And of course I have some examples of the opposite, because an expert on writing like yourself should be well aware that all allegorical tales are always based on the functionality of characters within the framework of the allegory you're trying to build, thus they are the very definition of weaving characters into the specific story you wish to tell, not the other way around.
But their interactions form the story right? It is formed to the purpose of the author via the vehicle of their interactions. The story is built from their motives and suchlike. Even if it is trying to convey some point. You're mincing words.
rather they all serve as an expression on different reflections of humanity that the author is trying to convey.
To express aspects of humanity they must interact in a way that conveys that aspect, right? Either that or they are very bland aspects of humanity. Mincing, again.
Maybe you should write to noted English institutions and tell them they should ignore this book because obviously it doesn't follow the proper rules.
Would I need to deal with more pompous psuedo intellectuals? Because I'm allergic.
Other allegorical tales, right down to Coelho's Alchemist, all follow the basic same storytelling technique of weaving characters around storylines. I could probably think of some non-allegorical tales that do the same, but do I really have to?
You have to think of a good storyline conveyed through some manner except character interaction, yes. Come on, I'm sure you can do it. Someothing philosophical about some guy being melancholy on a hill or something, the kind of thing that would make a great game.
It is not unreasonable at all to expect there to be plenty of diplomatic options for that character. I didn't encounter any though, just fighting.
I posted my character at level 4. Yes, I was defiantely implying that I had done all quests and hadn't found a diplomatic solution in a single one. Great job.
Amusingly, you can resolve vast majority of quests by non-violent means, including the entire main quest. Just like in KotOR, right?
The vast majority of quests must have happened in other parst of the game than I visited then. Because I found lots of boring combat.
One violent outcome is same as other, no difference at all, durrr!
No difference in gameplay style, don't be dense. They are both warrior paths.
I'm beginning to wonder if you "read" anything outside RPGs. R.A. Salvatore doesn't count.
Not as much as I used to, sadly.
Character interaction can't be an issue (even if it was some kind of a prerequisite for a great story, which it isn't), because Fallout had plenty of it, and it was generally very well written.
This must have been in that fantastical other part of the game along with all the non-violent quests. Oh, if only I'd had the will to perservere through the bandit ambushes.
