Comments on: Comparing “Jak and Daxter” and “Ratchet and Clank”: Two Series Everyone Must Play /2013/04/27/comparing-jak-and-daxter-and-ratchet-and-clank-two-series-everyone-must-play/ Play, Share, Unite! Thu, 10 Sep 2015 02:58:37 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.com/ By: duckofindeed /2013/04/27/comparing-jak-and-daxter-and-ratchet-and-clank-two-series-everyone-must-play/comment-page-1/#comment-77 Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:25:28 +0000 /?p=209#comment-77 You make a good point. I certainly don’t want to play as someone I dislike. (I still dislike Ratchet. Stupid, jerky Ratchet.) Plus, they probably want you to feel like you are the main character more, so they must give them less character traits, or else you can’t relate as much to them.

And I agree with you about “Up Your Arsenal”. “A Crack in Time” was awesome, but it was too short and easy. “Up Your Arsenal” seemed to be longer, as far as I remember, and it was way more challenging, so it was way more satisfying. The final bosses of “A Crack in Time” were just sad.

]]> By: Hatm0nster /2013/04/27/comparing-jak-and-daxter-and-ratchet-and-clank-two-series-everyone-must-play/comment-page-1/#comment-75 Tue, 30 Apr 2013 02:10:48 +0000 /?p=209#comment-75 I think part of the reason we see so many bland main/ player characters (Mass Effect’s Commander Shepard jumps to mind here), is simply because they are the player character. Giving the player-character a personality is a risk because there will always be a portion of the audience that won’t like it. This is fine for NPCs, because they’re just the characters you deal with in the game, the same cannot be said for the player-character however.
This is because we usually spend ALL our time in the game with that character, and since nobody wants to spend time with someone they don’t like, the quick and easy solution is to make the character as inoffensive as possible by keeping them bland and generally uninteresting. You may not like a bland main character, but it’s also hard to say that you dislike them.

Also, anyone else here think that Up Your Arsenal was the series high point for R&C?

]]> By: duckofindeed /2013/04/27/comparing-jak-and-daxter-and-ratchet-and-clank-two-series-everyone-must-play/comment-page-1/#comment-69 Sun, 28 Apr 2013 20:25:25 +0000 /?p=209#comment-69 That’s true, main characters are often not the most entertaining. Often times, they are boring, so my favorite characters are usually the villains or some minor character. It’s usually the sidekick and/or the villain that is the most fun. (With Dr. Nefarious being an obvious example of a funny villain. And in the “Zelda” series, “Skyward Sword” had the villain Ghirahim, who was very entertaining.) You’d think they’d want the hero, who is also the playable character, to be interesting, but I suppose not. And it’s so strange how the “R&C” series is so hilarious, but the main characters are largely not that funny. At least in “Jak and Daxter”, much of the humor comes from Daxter interacting with everyone else. Mainly annoying everyone else.

And, yeah, Tingle is an example of a NOT good supporting character. Tingle is frightening. And deeply disturbing.

]]> By: D. James Fortescue /2013/04/27/comparing-jak-and-daxter-and-ratchet-and-clank-two-series-everyone-must-play/comment-page-1/#comment-67 Sun, 28 Apr 2013 07:07:33 +0000 /?p=209#comment-67 It is surprising how common it is to have a bland good guy, whose sidekick ends up having all the character. Asterix was quite bland, but Obelix helped him out. Link is bland, but is helped by Zelda and Ganondor, or other supporting characters such Navi, King of Red Lions, Fi, Tingle… OK maybe not Tingle, but hopefully the point is made.

Duck has put a most convincing argument forward for Dr. Nefarious being the stand-out character of the R&C series. I would support R&C only because hilarious supporting characters are awesome =)

]]>