245 réponses à ce sujet

[PsychoBlonde]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Fortlowe wrote...
Tolkien would disagree.

As would a host of other authors.  And a lot of readers, including myself.  So holding it up as a rule doesn't really make sense.

A preference, sure.  A rule?  No.  Heck, one of the most popular contemporary fiction authors doesn't even view punctuation as a rule.

Yes, because popularity is ALWAYS an indicator of skill and quality.

It won't necessarily RUIN your work if you go for this lazy, slipshod, gimmicky crap, but it's hardly an indicator of virtuoso skill, either.  And having all these appendices and lore crap actually makes it HARDER to write sequels, not easier--unless you don't mind accidentally contradicting yourself somewhere, which your fans WILL notice.  Viz: the provenance of the Wildhammer Fact Checker in WoW.

[Maria Caliban]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Appendices have no place in fiction.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

[Fortlowe]

Gemini1179 wrote...

At least make it so that if we have a new entry, we are able to find it if the category is one that we need to scroll down through. It was very annoying trying to figure out which codex entry was new in the "Notes" and "Quest Items" and other categories in DAO where they were at the bottom of the screen. It's useless to have a new entry be highlighted and then canceled when scroll to it if you are never able to see that it was highlighted in the first place.

Does that make any sense? I always found that I was scrolling over a new entry and not knowing it because I couldn't see the whole list and which one was highlighted.

Perhaps if you have to actually acknowledge that it was read like in ME where it stayed highlighted even if you scrolled to it.

^also this

[upsettingshorts]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Yes, because popularity is ALWAYS an indicator of skill and quality.

That Cormac McCarthy guy stinks and should never write again a punctuationless book again.  That being said, an appeal to popularity is just as flawed as appealing to Neal Stephenson.  Authorities have credibility, but they are not infallible.

PsychoBlonde wrote...

It won't necessarily RUIN your work if you go for this lazy, slipshod, gimmicky crap, but it's hardly an indicator of virtuoso skill, either.

Neither is deciding not to use it.  The key to me is the strength of the narrative and/or the relevance of the message, if there is one.  Whether a writer includes an appendix or not has no bearing on my evaluation of their talent.

I'm frankly perplexed that I'm even having this discussion. 

Maria Caliban wrote...

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

*twitch*

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 08 novembre 2010 - 05:19 .

[Fortlowe]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Fortlowe wrote...
Tolkien would disagree.

As would a host of other authors.  And a lot of readers, including myself.  So holding it up as a rule doesn't really make sense.

A preference, sure.  A rule?  No.  Heck, one of the most popular contemporary fiction authors doesn't even view punctuation as a rule.

Yes, because popularity is ALWAYS an indicator of skill and quality.

It won't necessarily RUIN your work if you go for this lazy, slipshod, gimmicky crap, but it's hardly an indicator of virtuoso skill, either.  And having all these appendices and lore crap actually makes it HARDER to write sequels, not easier--unless you don't mind accidentally contradicting yourself somewhere, which your fans WILL notice.  Viz: the provenance of the Wildhammer Fact Checker in WoW.

WoW is not Tolkien. Neither is DA for that matter, but writing off an appendix out of hand is just shortsighted. Especiallly considering the medium. It's a videogame. A videogame whose nature is to render a more than adequate impression of a serial fantasy novel. The codex is a very well written extention of that nature.

Modifié par Fortlowe, 08 novembre 2010 - 05:36 .

[Fortlowe]

[quote]Maria Caliban wrote...

Only a Sith deals in absolutes. [/quote]

*twitch*

[/quote]

ditto

[soteria]

It won't necessarily RUIN your work if you go for this lazy, slipshod, gimmicky crap, but it's hardly an indicator of virtuoso skill, either.

Lazy, slipshod, gimmicky crap? That doesn't even make sense. They're certainly not lazy--an appendix contains supplementary information that the author thought readers might want to know but don't need to understand the story. "Slipshod" in the context you put it implies that appendices are inherently inaccurate. That's patently false because they are no more or less likely to be inaccurate than the rest of the book. "Gimmicky"? I think appendices have been around long enough not to be called a gimmick anymore. "Crap" is just telling us your opinion on them, which we already knew. At least you got one thing right.

And having all these appendices and lore crap actually makes it HARDER to write sequels, not easier--unless you don't mind accidentally contradicting yourself somewhere, which your fans WILL notice.

I don't see how encouraging writers to be honest and consistent is a bad thing. If anything, this makes NOT publishing an appendix sound lazy and slipshod, because you're giving yourself an out if you want to sneakily retcon something.

[Ulicus]

^ No, there'd simply be no retcon.

Take the "Arls have no Banns sworn to them" example, of earlier. That only ever cropped up in the Codex and was then contradicted by Awakening. Had there been no Codex, there would have been no retcon.

Not that I think getting rid of the Codex is a good idea. I like the Codex. And I don't think they're lazy either. Unless, of course, you're relying on the codex to relay information that is important to the story -- see FFXIII, bah-- but Dragon Age: Origins didn't really do that, as far as I can remember.

Modifié par Ulicus, 08 novembre 2010 - 05:38 .

[Maria Caliban]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

*twitch*

If you're not with me, you're my enemy.

[Seagloom]

I have to agree with PsychoBlonde on this to an extent. Information dumps are poor form when it comes to storytelling. It is always better to show rather than tell. That said, I give video games such as Dragon Age a pass simply because they are video games. They have to serve other needs books and movies do not. Contrary to all the arguments that games are art, I feel the industry is a long way from reaching a place where that is universally true. As such, I rarely hold game writers to the same standards I do novelists or playwrights. I enjoyed Dragon Age: Origins's codex entries for the extra bits of information they offered, but if I would find that sort of thing the crutch of a poor writer in another medium. Reading author's notes for added depth after the fact is okay. Picking up an annotated copy of a story after reading it bare bones for further insight can be interesting too. Where it gets troublesome is when these things are used to make up for bad storytelling.

A well woven story should tell me everything I need to know as it goes along, without forcing me to look at notes to figure it out. The moment I need a glut of outside information to appreciate what is transpiring, the author has failed. Some writers skate by because their stories are so beloved, readers gleefully overlook their shortcomings. A modern example of this is Dan Brown, who loves information dumps with a passion in his books, but who few people would call out as an unskilled author. Tolkien was brought up before, and is another example of this. The man has an exalted place in the hearts and minds of fantasy readers, but at a critical level I have heard a few scathing critiques of his writing. I cannot judge the vaidity of those critiques myself, having never bothered with his books.

Contrary to popular belief, writing is not an art form. The creativity one needs to create convincing and entertaining characters probably is. The meat of a story, the content, is based in a writer's talent. But the technical aspects and methods used to deliver those creative ideas are mechanical. There are various conventions and techniques many writers agree are necessary to spin a good story. There is also a staggering amount of trial and error, and repetition in the process. Information dumps are contrary to one of these conventions. (That is, show not tell.) So on that level, I think PsychoBlonde makes a very good point. I just feel it is not necessarily applicable to a video game with somewhat different goals than a tome or film.

Modifié par Seagloom, 08 novembre 2010 - 05:44 .

[upsettingshorts]

Maria Caliban wrote...
If you're not with me, you're my enemy.

Stop quoting George Lucas scripts!  My ears are bleeding!

As far as this whole appendix argument is going.  I think all I've learned today is that some people - readers and authors - don't like them because they fail a concept I'd describe as conservation of exposition.  I still like them.  I don't expect either side will be making any ideological conversions today on that issue.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 08 novembre 2010 - 05:41 .

[Addai]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

PsychoBlonde wrote...
(snip)

... it's an Appendix.

It doesn't matter where you put the info dump, whether it's tacked on the end or stuffed into the story itself, it's the same writing mistake.  Appendix, footnote, in-story essay.  Don't matter.

If your work needs an appendix, you need to stop world-building for the sake of world-building.  Appendices have no place in fiction.  And go read some Neal Stephenson.  His books contain an ENORMOUS amount of information, but none of it EVER feels like an info-dump because a.) it's integral to the story, and b.) he works it into what's going on IN the story.  Even his very longest informational segments are full of characterization, plot development, motorcycle chases, etc.  (Granted the purpose of some of his "anecdotal" segments in, say, Cryptonomicon isn't always apparent until you've read the book a couple of times.  He can be a bit obscure.)

The mantra of fiction writers should always be "If it ain't important, don't put it in.  (ANYWHERE.)  If it IS important, work it seamlessly into the totality."
  

Whoa, dogmatic much?  I happen to LOVE the nerdy bits.  And especially with video games, where I may play a couple hours here and a couple hours there over the span of several weeks or months, I can't keep it all in my head and don't want to.  Ideally you combine a story-based interweaving with some reference material to pore over later or if you want to look deeper into the subject.  I have no problem with the codex system from Origins except how it was indexed made it hard to find things at a glance.

[Maria Caliban]

Seagloom wrote...

Contrary to popular belief, writing is not an art form. The creativity one needs to portray convincing and entertaining characters probably is. The meat of a story, the content, is based in a writer's talent. But the technical aspects and methods used to deliver those creative ideas are mechanical. There are various conventions and techniques many writers agree are necessary to spin a good story. Information dumps are contrary to one of these. (That is, show not tell.)

Did you just say that writing is not an art form because it relies on mechanical talents? If so, I disagree as all art forms rely on mechanical/technical ability.

[PsychoBlonde]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Neither is deciding not to use it.  The key to me is the strength of the narrative and/or the relevance of the message, if there is one.  Whether a writer includes an appendix or not has no bearing on my evaluation of their talent.

Whether a writer NEEDS to include an appendix or not, should.  And if they feel they need to when they don't, that should also be an indicator, just like J.K. Rowling's after-series-end diclosure of such utterly pointless "facts" like Dumbledore being gay or her dithering about whether to write a prequel or not.

Composing a large work will always mean that the author has WAYYYYY more material than they can or should include.  When you're in the middle of writing your mind will want to follow up all sorts of weird trails to their conclusion and this is helpful because it gives you a better grasp on your material.  But that doesn't mean every side-trail should be followed up.  Great writing is often more about what you CUT than about what you leave in.  Something like 80% of the deleted scenes in movies don't add anything but time to the experience.  Which is why they were cut.

Being good at anything means being utterly ruthless with yourself about the format of your end product.  If you were designing an engine, would you bolt on a bathtub or a desk chair just because you happened to have one available?  No.  And there is not zero cost involved in including all this drivel.  It ticks me off when I hear devs complaining that they didn't get to include this or that which would have been seriously cool--but they included all this other crap instead?  And keep in mind also that the first editions of Tolkein's books did NOT include all the appendices and so forth.  Later on, after the work is ALREADY popular and the publisher is looking to sell special editions, that stuff gets added in so even people who already own it might be enticed to buy it anew, esp. if their old copy is falling apart.

I'd like to see the primary release be tighter than a rockstar's leather thong.  That would deserve some SERIOUS accolades and make it utterly unique in the world of video games.  This is the area where Bioware shines.  Their plots are usually retreads (decent ones, but still, retreads), their graphics are okay, technology mediocre, effects and action all competent but hardly noteworthy.  They are not suddenly going to break out and become a frontrunner in any of those areas.  (Not that they shouldn't keep improving as much as they can.  One of the other great things about Bioware is that they keep trying new stuff even if it isn't 100% polished every time.)  But they are already close to the top if not the top in writing, and the way they will stay profitable is to keep raising the bar in that area.  Like Lance Armstrong, they should keep striving to beat their own record instead of saying, wow, I'm the record-holder, guess I should sit on my arse now.

This is what I want to see.  And keeping the increasingly-clunky codex because it's traditional is not the way to go.

[Saibh]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Seagloom wrote...

Contrary to popular belief, writing is not an art form. The creativity one needs to portray convincing and entertaining characters probably is. The meat of a story, the content, is based in a writer's talent. But the technical aspects and methods used to deliver those creative ideas are mechanical. There are various conventions and techniques many writers agree are necessary to spin a good story. Information dumps are contrary to one of these. (That is, show not tell.)

Did you just say that writing is not an art form because it relies on mechanical talents? If so, I disagree as all art forms rely on mechanical/technical ability.

Agreed. Parallels can be drawn between moving pieces of art that are not technically skilled and done by a master, but also moving pieces of prose and poetry.

Generally, however, art is done by those with the skill to do it. As is writing. Sure, anyone can take a crack at it, but if the piece lacks technically quality there must be something truly beautiful in another way that makes it so.

[soteria]

^ No, there'd simply be no retcon.

Take the "Arls have no Banns sworn to them" example, of earlier. That only ever cropped up in the Codex and was then contradicted by Awakening. Had there been no Codex, there would have been no retcon.

Maybe. We don't know what else they might have changed if it hadn't been in the codex, or what they did change that wasn't published in the codex. We can only tell when they do retcon something or when they do follow established lore. Although we can agree retcons are bad, IMO seeing them follow stuff they've established in the first game in the codex is good--better than just assuming they're making new stuff up.

[PsychoBlonde]

Maybe I should make a "I support codex-removal" banner or something. I kind of like those little sig banner things, so you can indicate where you stand without having to devote huge massive threads to the subject.

[Dave of Canada]

This is probably a very stupid thing to say but... I hope the codex from the first one imports, even if it makes no sense for Hawke to know all these things.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 08 novembre 2010 - 05:55 .

[Seagloom]

@Maria Caliban - No. I am saying that truly impressive writing is half talent, half mechanics. There is this strange popular belief that an outstanding writer becomes that way through talent alone.

A poor writer can become decent by learning writing techniques. An amazing writer is amazing by possessing a gift for creativity and content that cannot be taught, and then learning those techniques to refine them. To put it another way, an amazing writer is like an uncut diamond. With the proper education and/or experience, they can become true gems. They are still valuable as uncut diamonds, but not utilizing their full potential. Often I hear or read online this belief that such a writer is just born that way, and magically reaches their peak with no thought to training or no need for trial and error, as if they always spun gold and all first drafts are perfection.

Modifié par Seagloom, 08 novembre 2010 - 05:58 .

[Fortlowe]

We'll have to agree to disagree, then. I, for one, enjoy the Codex. It brought into even sharper contrast an already very crisp narrative, and the game would have been less without it.

[upsettingshorts]

PsychoBlonde wrote...
This is what I want to see.

Well that's just like... your opinion, man.

[Maria Caliban]

Seagloom wrote...

@Maria Caliban - No. I am saying that truly impressive writing is half talent, half mechanics. There is this strange popular belief that an outstanding writer became that way through talent alone.

Yes, I agree. But how does that make it not an artform?

[Addai]

Seagloom wrote...

Contrary to popular belief, writing is not an art form. The creativity one needs to create convincing and entertaining characters probably is. The meat of a story, the content, is based in a writer's talent. But the technical aspects and methods used to deliver those creative ideas are mechanical. There are various conventions and techniques many writers agree are necessary to spin a good story. There is also a staggering amount of trial and error, and repetition in the process. Information dumps are contrary to one of these conventions. (That is, show not tell.) So on that level, I think PsychoBlonde makes a very good point. I just feel it is not necessarily applicable to a video game with somewhat different goals than a tome or film.

Let me just pause a moment to digest the fact that you "never bothered" with Tolkien.  Okay, I'm over the shock.

The problem I have with your post as with Psycho's is that it is very dogmatic.  Sure, there are writing conventions, and a lot of times when people go outside them, it flops.  But still, not everyone has to write the same way, and not all readers like the same things.  For me, Tolkien's style is like red meat to the hounds.  That's because he approaches a creative subject as if it were an academic one.  He's writing history and philology, just a history and philology that was never "discovered" before he wrote.  That's how a lot of sci fi and fantasy is- a whole new world, with new rules and new backgrounds.  I want to know the stories that come out of those worlds, but if a lore set fascinates me, then I am just as interested in the "textbooks" that come out of them.  So, what, am I a faulty reader for appreciating appendices and codex?

P.S. I also think that the more background material that is written, especially for a fantasy genre, the better the actual story is going to be.  And if an author is willing to publish the guts of his or her writing process, I eat that kind of thing up.

Modifié par Addai67, 08 novembre 2010 - 06:01 .

[upsettingshorts]

The massive history nerd in me endorses Addai67's rebuttal.