So, why did they bother with the 'why do birds fly' thing?

[zfan121]

My buddy has finished the game before me (I never finished my other two playthroughs and plan to rectify that with the PC version playthrough) but apparently the 'why do birds fly' thing is never explained? Not even in the context of 'oh, I get why the villain says this' way?

I don't mind that you have to figure it out yourself, but it's kind of weird to throw a random rhetorical question in there CONSTANTLY and never explain why it's there. There are much better ways to add a question like that for the characters, seems to me they just did it to be edgy and make the villain sound cool.

[zfan121]

Originally posted by Demi:

Artorias has his answer which reflects his actions, Velvet decides that she has a different answer that reflects her own actions. It's a metaphor for the conflict between the characters and their differing ideals of reason vs. emotion. Artorias asks this question because a person's answer can inform him of their views, and if they see things the same way he does.

It's not really the kind of thing that needs an explicit explanation, it's kind of obvious in my opinion.

Yeah I kinda figured it was that, it just seemed kind of random.
Like I don't think any other Tales baddie does this (that I've seen I started with Symphonia) and I can't think of too many reasons to include it.

[zfan121]

Originally posted by Demi:

Originally posted by zfan121:

Yeah I kinda figured it was that, it just seemed kind of random.
Like I don't think any other Tales baddie does this (that I've seen I started with Symphonia) and I can't think of too many reasons to include it.

You can also look at it as a characterisation thing. Artorias is always disappointed with the answers other people give when he asks this question, because in his mind their is only one absolute answer; his. This question wasn't thrown in at random, it gives you important information about the antagonist's mindset. It also gives you important information about Velvet's mindset, as well as how her views develop throughout the story as her answer changes over time. To sum up her ultimate view, Velvet doesn't believe that their can only be one answer, and she doesn't think a bird should have to justify itself should it wish to fly. Read this metaphorically and you should see how strongly it represents the incompatibility between the two character's ideals. The two schools of thought cannot coexist, and so one must destroy the other. This is called internal character drive, and it generally makes for much stronger characters than external drives.

Eh, outside the game I get it.
In-universe it just seems like an odd character quirk.
I like these kinds of things but at the same time it sorta bugs me. I guess what bugs me is there's not really enough in-universe reason for him to do it. Especially with him being the big villain and all.

I have a character who starts doing a similar thing with 'how do we walk' about midway through a story.

What makes him different from Artorias is that he's both amused and perplexed when someone gives an answer other than what he expects. He might not fully understand their answers but he accepts them because the difference is interesting. The implications are a little different for this question I think too, the answer can be a bit more character defining. You can sorta guess the differences between someone who answers 'alone' or 'together' where answers like 'one step forward two steps back' might be more ambiguous.

I don't know if it's Artorias that inspired me to do this with my character (I won't snub the possibility) but I like to think that maybe it made me decide to go through with it.

[jabberwok]

Originally posted by zfan121:

Originally posted by Demi:

You can also look at it as a characterisation thing. Artorias is always disappointed with the answers other people give when he asks this question, because in his mind their is only one absolute answer; his. This question wasn't thrown in at random, it gives you important information about the antagonist's mindset. It also gives you important information about Velvet's mindset, as well as how her views develop throughout the story as her answer changes over time. To sum up her ultimate view, Velvet doesn't believe that their can only be one answer, and she doesn't think a bird should have to justify itself should it wish to fly. Read this metaphorically and you should see how strongly it represents the incompatibility between the two character's ideals. The two schools of thought cannot coexist, and so one must destroy the other. This is called internal character drive, and it generally makes for much stronger characters than external drives.

Eh, outside the game I get it.
In-universe it just seems like an odd character quirk.
I like these kinds of things but at the same time it sorta bugs me. I guess what bugs me is there's not really enough in-universe reason for him to do it. Especially with him being the big villain and all.

I have a character who starts doing a similar thing with 'how do we walk' about midway through a story.

What makes him different from Artorias is that he's both amused and perplexed when someone gives an answer other than what he expects. He might not fully understand their answers but he accepts them because the difference is interesting. The implications are a little different for this question I think too, the answer can be a bit more character defining. You can sorta guess the differences between someone who answers 'alone' or 'together' where answers like 'one step forward two steps back' might be more ambiguous.

I don't know if it's Artorias that inspired me to do this with my character (I won't snub the possibility) but I like to think that maybe it made me decide to go through with it.

It makes sense to me in-universe. It's probably something he was asked by his mentor, and so he repeats it as a piece of dogma. He has a personal relationship with Velvet, so her answer is important to him, just as it was important to him that she learn his martial art properly, the way he wanted her to (which she doesn't do, of course). He asks it multiple times to other people as a test of character because that's probably how it was used on him.

[bowlingjuba]

Originally posted by zfan121:

Originally posted by Demi:

You can also look at it as a characterisation thing. Artorias is always disappointed with the answers other people give when he asks this question, because in his mind their is only one absolute answer; his. This question wasn't thrown in at random, it gives you important information about the antagonist's mindset. It also gives you important information about Velvet's mindset, as well as how her views develop throughout the story as her answer changes over time. To sum up her ultimate view, Velvet doesn't believe that their can only be one answer, and she doesn't think a bird should have to justify itself should it wish to fly. Read this metaphorically and you should see how strongly it represents the incompatibility between the two character's ideals. The two schools of thought cannot coexist, and so one must destroy the other. This is called internal character drive, and it generally makes for much stronger characters than external drives.

Eh, outside the game I get it.
In-universe it just seems like an odd character quirk.
I like these kinds of things but at the same time it sorta bugs me. I guess what bugs me is there's not really enough in-universe reason for him to do it. Especially with him being the big villain and all.

I have a character who starts doing a similar thing with 'how do we walk' about midway through a story.

What makes him different from Artorias is that he's both amused and perplexed when someone gives an answer other than what he expects. He might not fully understand their answers but he accepts them because the difference is interesting. The implications are a little different for this question I think too, the answer can be a bit more character defining. You can sorta guess the differences between someone who answers 'alone' or 'together' where answers like 'one step forward two steps back' might be more ambiguous.

I don't know if it's Artorias that inspired me to do this with my character (I won't snub the possibility) but I like to think that maybe it made me decide to go through with it.

There's a lot of power in asking a simple question that CAN'T really have a singular answer. Artorias is a manipulator. "Why do birds fly?" is an excellent gauge to consistently use because it's a simple question with endless potential complexity in it's answer depending on who it's asked of. Does the person you're asking engage with it? Ignore it? Overthink it? Underthink it? Do they have an answer? You've given away nothing in asking, and they've given away everything in answering. There's no reason to lie, because the question on it's own without the individual behind it is "harmless."

Any answer they give reveals aspects of how their mind, perspective, and thought processes work. Now if your goal is to manipulate them into doing what you want, unless they're wise to you already, you know everything about them necessary to craft your next move. Just make your next words fit with what you discovered in their answer. The answer itself is also just interesting to him, even if he's disappointed in it, it's still useful to him.

[jabberwok]

Originally posted by bowlingjuba:

Originally posted by zfan121:

Eh, outside the game I get it.
In-universe it just seems like an odd character quirk.
I like these kinds of things but at the same time it sorta bugs me. I guess what bugs me is there's not really enough in-universe reason for him to do it. Especially with him being the big villain and all.

I have a character who starts doing a similar thing with 'how do we walk' about midway through a story.

What makes him different from Artorias is that he's both amused and perplexed when someone gives an answer other than what he expects. He might not fully understand their answers but he accepts them because the difference is interesting. The implications are a little different for this question I think too, the answer can be a bit more character defining. You can sorta guess the differences between someone who answers 'alone' or 'together' where answers like 'one step forward two steps back' might be more ambiguous.

I don't know if it's Artorias that inspired me to do this with my character (I won't snub the possibility) but I like to think that maybe it made me decide to go through with it.

There's a lot of power in asking a simple question that CAN'T really have a singular answer. Artorias is a manipulator. "Why do birds fly?" is an excellent gauge to consistently use because it's a simple question with endless potential complexity in it's answer depending on who it's asked of. Does the person you're asking engage with it? Ignore it? Overthink it? Underthink it? Do they have an answer? You've given away nothing in asking, and they've given away everything in answering. There's no reason to lie, because the question on it's own without the individual behind it is "harmless."

Any answer they give reveals aspects of how their mind, perspective, and thought processes work. Now if your goal is to manipulate them into doing what you want, unless they're wise to you already, you know everything about them necessary to craft your next move. Just make your next words fit with what you discovered in their answer. The answer itself is also just interesting to him, even if he's disappointed in it, it's still useful to him.

This is exactly how he uses it on Eleanor, when she asks an important question that he doesn't want to answer. So he just responds with a riddle instead.

[quixoticaxis]

Originally posted by Demi:

Artorias is always disappointed with the answers other people give when he asks this question, because in his mind their is only one absolute answer; his.

I understood it in another way: Artorias is disappointed with the answers other people give, because he really wants to hear the answer that is different from his own, but is still viable.

[cybercybercybercyber4]

why does our eyesight worsen over time?
a) i dont care
b) because of errors occuring in the lense
c) proteins breaking down over time or from UV rays
d) people didnt get very old in past millenia, so evolution never adapted. just like our ears get damaged by speakers easily due to never having been exposed to loud sounds in the past millenia.
e) worse eyesight helps not getting lost in details to spare concentration to oversee the surroundings and copying the parents isnt neccessary with age (as in worse eyesight was actually beneficial)

----

What im getting at: i think with the question artorius tries to find out on what intellectual level the other person is on to find out how to manipulate them.
Most of us would probably answer with "evolution" or "gods plan" in case we believe that, but their answers are so unexpectatly nonsensical that he is just left negatively bamboozeled.