+- Frictional Games Forum (read-only) (https://www.frictionalgames.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Amnesia: A Machine For Pigs (https://www.frictionalgames.com/forum/forum-50.html)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://www.frictionalgames.com/forum/forum-51.html)
+--- Thread: Daniel vs Mandus (/thread-23064.html)
Daniel vs Mandus - Alardem - 09-12-2013
[This was inevitable.]
Which anti-hero did you prefer playing as?
In terms of scale, Mandus easily wins out - he's a vile industrialist dependent on the blood of animals and boys for money even before his self-realization, and ends up tormenting thousands of people following his nihilistic breakdown. It's never made clear how many people Daniel personally tortured and murdered, but even so the dungeons of Brennenburg could never have acquired as many victims as Mandus' Machine did.
Gameplay-wise, I like Mandus more. Simply put, he's a braver man - motivated by a pig-headed love for his sons, his fear and tenuous grasp on sanity never provide frustration for the player. Whenever he's trembling in fear or running in blind panic, it's because I myself feel those emotions and not because of some arbitrary game mechanic.
I have to say that I didn't want either of them to succeed. Daniel was motivated by fear and selfishness - relatable, but not heroic. He was too weak to deal with his own evil, and wanted revenge on Alexander for corrupting himself rather than because Alexander victimized innocents. Mandus, by contrast, is motivated by despair, externalized self-loathing, misanthropy and twisted love. His 'sacrifice' at the end doesn't at all impress me because, ultimately, he could not undo his own actions and may have inadvertently brought about a 20th century more horrific than our own.
TL;DR - I'd go with Mandus for now. He's a creepier protagonist, and also less irritating to play as.
RE: Daniel vs Mandus - Diz - 09-12-2013
I prefer Daniel. I feel he was much easier to connect with, not only because I used to have something like nyctophobia myself, but because I feel his character is much more open. When compared to Oswald, Daniel gives me a much better impression of being at the wrong places at the wrong times, having his mind manipulated by a tradegic expedition's eerie aftermath and wanting to stop the supernatural from killing even more innocent people to the point he let himself be brainwashed by Alexander and eventually making him insane. Oswald's goal was on a whole different level. In order to "save" humanity, he seemed wanting to wipe it all out, killing all and every person, including his own children. From my impressions (I will have to re-play A Machine For Pigs, though) I currently feel Daniel's story and actions are much more defendable than Oswald's.
Regarding what you say about Daniel's revenge on Alexander, we might be able to discuss this in more detail. I will start by asking, did Daniel really seek revenge on Alexander for corrupting him contrary to victimizing innocent people? Amnesia: The Dark Descent has three main endings, which ultimately is up to the player to decide. This might be another reason why I felt connected to Daniel. You could chooes to take revenge, yes. However, if you choose to help Agrippa through the portal, perhaps you are motivated by all the victims, including Agrippa? You may even feel for Alexander's situation and let him through the gate. There is no official ending, as far as I know, as the players individually need to judge that. I only played one of the endings of A Machine For Pigs (not sure if there are more than one? I assume there would be at least two).
Daniel furthermore wins points for his bravery. Yep, I said it. Let me explain. Daniel has nyctophobia, a very intense fear of the dark and the unknown. He could have been hospitalized for staying in the darkness even just for a bit, it's what phobias potentially do. They are intense. Despite this, Daniel pushed himself onward through an ancient living nightmare of a dark, deserted castle. Granted, there was only one way to go, but he did push through, instead of being stuck in one part of the castle long enough to get caught by the Guardian. Daniel has a bigger reason than anyone to be terrified and incapacitated of the lurking gatherers and kaernk. Oswald was scared, obviously, but he did not have a condition to hinder his progress, a fever means nothing compared to nyctophobia, and the lack of effects and penalties around creatures I believe also helps suggesting that. I would push on strongly if my children were in danger, perhaps hesitate a bit before pushing on in A Machine For Pigs, but if I had that intense fear of the dark and unknown, I would never have made it through The Dark Descent.
All in all, my conclusion is that I feel Daniel was a good person, wanted a good life, and I feel The Dark Descent shows us how much a series of events, including the amnesia effect, can dramatically change a good person into a mindless monster. Oswald, before his amnesia, had given entirely up on humanity and seemingly wanted to wipe all of it for a questionable vision. I like both characters, of course, but Daniel remains my favourite. ^^
RE: Daniel vs Mandus - Googolplex - 09-12-2013
I could better feel with Mandus.
RE: Daniel vs Mandus - APSS2013 - 09-12-2013
I accidentally voted Daniel, so for now, it's tied
RE: Daniel vs Mandus - summit - 09-12-2013
Mandus, of course. Sorry to Daniel fans, but Daniel was a coward.
RE: Daniel vs Mandus - pinkribbonscars - 09-12-2013
Daniel was a selfish ass, So Mandus easily.
RE: Daniel vs Mandus - Kreekakon - 09-12-2013
This question...especially since it deals with these two particular people can really put people in a pickle to exactly what you're using to judge as "liking them better."
Simply put you might like one better as a "person", but not as much as a fictional "character".
Let me explain using Daniel, and Mandus as examples. I believe that Mandus ends up a better person being of the responsibility, and heroism he decides to undertake to try, and set things right. Daniel might fall short on this end ultimately.
However I think it is undeniable that Daniel was more fleshed out as a character. Through all the notes, diaries, and such such in TDD you find you can find out a lot about the more personal aspects of Daniel. In AMFP Mandus's things seem to be more limited to his overall desires, and ambitions. It IS fleshed out don't get me wrong, but Daniel's I feel was executed in a way that made it feel a lot more personal so that you could deeply know how Daniel himself felt as opposed to Mandus who you get to know on a more general scale.
So long story short: Oswald as a person, Daniel as a character.
RE: Daniel vs Mandus - Cuyir - 09-12-2013
Daniel was a spineless, selfish, submissive coward that fainted at the first scary sound he ever heard.
Mandus is definitely a more disgusting and vile person but i can't stand cowards like Daniel.
RE: Daniel vs Mandus - Kreekakon - 09-12-2013
(09-12-2013, 10:32 PM)Nuits Grace Wrote: Daniel was a spineless, selfish, submissive coward that fainted at the first scary sound he ever heard.
To be completely fair though if any of us went into the same situation as Daniel I think more than a few of us would have done the same things he did.
RE: Daniel vs Mandus - Cuyir - 09-12-2013
(09-12-2013, 10:36 PM)Kreekakon Wrote:(09-12-2013, 10:32 PM)Nuits Grace Wrote: Daniel was a spineless, selfish, submissive coward that fainted at the first scary sound he ever heard.
To be completely fair though if any of us went into the same situation as Daniel I think more than a few of us would have done the same things he did.
I don't want to sound like a bad ass but I wouldn't.
I'd have fallen prey to the shadow, went insane or offed myself. One of the three. I wouldn't have done the things he did.